# Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy -- M Stanton Evans



## CrusaderFrank

The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.

You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel. 

The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.

Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!

Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!

We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)

Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Did you know that genuine Communist spies confirmed by Venona and other sources were prominent at the State Department, Treasury and on FDR's senior staff?

Do you know why this matters?

Can you imagine how the world might be different had FDR NOT pursued a policy of strangling Japan economically prior to Pearl Harbor as he was advised by Lauchin Currie? Japan and Russia fought a bitter war at the turn of the century with the Japanese clearly coming out on top, destroying fully 2/3 of the Russian Navy and denying them their access to the Pacific. Russia did not want to fight the Japanese, they wanted the Japanese to fight the USA, they directed their agents to have the USA start taking these actions against the Japanese.

Did you know they advised FDR to back Mao because he was "Progressive" while they outright lied about the Chiang Kai Shek? That's why ChiComs run China.

That's why it matters


----------



## editec

Sounds like an interest read, Cru.

I'll have to look it up in the local library.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

I agree with you, this is by far the most important McCarthy book to date.



CrusaderFrank said:


> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy ... used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> ...
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem...



As I'm sure you know (as Evans mentions on page 9), HUAC was a committee of the House of Representatives. McCarthy never served on HUAC, because McCarthy never served in the House. McCarthy served in the Senate, where he was chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, and of its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The PSI could investigate only government operations, hence its hearings were limited to Communist penetration of the Federal government and concomitant policy subversion. The PSI (unlike HUAC) could not investigate the Communist penetration of non-government areas, such as Hollywood, thus had nothing to do with HUAC's Hollywood hearings, or the ensuing studio blacklists, which snared Zero Mostel. In addition, those HUAC hearings took place in 1947; McCarthy didn't even enter the fray until 1950.

Incidentally, HUAC grew out of a 1934 House resolution calling for a special committee to investigate "un-American activities." That resolution was introduced by Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D-NY), a Soviet agent code-named "Crook." Under the pretext of investigating suspected "fascists," he used the committee in the 1930s to launch "witch-hunts" against anti-Communist U.S. businessmen, Soviet emigres and Trotskyites (after they were identified by Stalin as "objectively fascist"). These witch-hunts had the enthusiastic support of the CPUSA.


----------



## editec

Everything I've read or heard from those who were involved with the HUAC hearings leads me to think that McCarthy was a nasty, hateful, lying, power-hungry drunk.

That leads me to want to read what this apologist for McCarthy has to say.

I owe no alligance to anything but the pursuit of the truth.

Even if the truth I find conflicts with what I previously thought was the truth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mark LaRochelle said:


> I agree with you, this is by far the most important McCarthy book to date.
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy ... used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> ...
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you know (as Evans mentions on page 9), HUAC was a committee of the House of Representatives. McCarthy never served on HUAC, because McCarthy never served in the House. McCarthy served in the Senate, where he was chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, and of its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The PSI could investigate only government operations, hence its hearings were limited to Communist penetration of the Federal government and concomitant policy subversion. The PSI (unlike HUAC) could not investigate the Communist penetration of non-government areas, such as Hollywood, thus had nothing to do with HUAC's Hollywood hearings, or the ensuing studio blacklists, which snared Zero Mostel. In addition, those HUAC hearings took place in 1947; McCarthy didn't even enter the fray until 1950.
> 
> Incidentally, HUAC grew out of a 1934 House resolution calling for a special committee to investigate "un-American activities." That resolution was introduced by Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D-NY), a Soviet agent code-named "Crook." Under the pretext of investigating suspected "fascists," he used the committee in the 1930s to launch "witch-hunts" against anti-Communist U.S. businessmen, Soviet emigres and Trotskyites (after they were identified by Stalin as "objectively fascist"). These witch-hunts had the enthusiastic support of the CPUSA.
Click to expand...


Amazing, no?

And even after Venona exposes so many prominent Government officials as genuine Communist agents and assets we get people clinging desperately to the lies about McCarthy.

If anything, McCarthy vastly understated and underestimated the penetration, the damage the wrought and the extent to which the US government was directed to do Moscow bidding


----------



## editec

Can you give us a list of all the people McCarthy claimed were Soviet agents working in the government, please?

And also a list of those who he exposed as Soviet agents that history has proven to actually BE Soviet agents?

That would be very helpful for us to understand just how effective the man was in exposing Soviets, and also helpful for us to understand how many innocent people whose lives were ruined by him.

A simple list will do, Cru.

A list that shows all the people he accused of being Soviet agents including notations showing us which of those truly were agents.

Think you can do that for us?

I'd appreciate it.


----------



## fyrenza

WTF???

How's about *THIS:

YOU* do the research and post it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

editec said:


> Can you give us a list of all the people McCarthy claimed were Soviet agents working in the government, please?
> 
> And also a list of those who he exposed as Soviet agents that history has proven to actually BE Soviet agents?
> 
> That would be very helpful for us to understand just how effective the man was in exposing Soviets, and also helpful for us to understand how many innocent people whose lives were ruined by him.
> 
> A simple list will do, Cru.
> 
> A list that shows all the people he accused of being Soviet agents including notations showing us which of those truly were agents.
> 
> Think you can do that for us?
> 
> I'd appreciate it.



Lauchlin Currie
Solomon Adler
V Frank Coe
Cedric Belfrage
T.A. Bisson
Harold Glasser
David Karr
Mary Jane Keeney
Leonard Mins
Franz Newmann

All from the book.  All documented.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

CrusaderFrank said:


> Communists in the US Government... handed China to Mao



That makes me question the whole book right there.


----------



## Bfgrn

I didnt much care for Joseph McCarthys ends, but I always admired his methods.
M. Stanton Evans

"I never liked Nixon until Watergate."
M. Stanton Evans


Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communists in the US Government... handed China to Mao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me question the whole book right there.
Click to expand...


You might want to take up reading, if not as a hobby, then as an occasional distraction


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> I didnt much care for Joseph McCarthys ends, but I always admired his methods.
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> "I never liked Nixon until Watergate."
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> 
> Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
> Edmund Burke



Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best -- Frank Zappa


----------



## uscitizen

Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

uscitizen said:


> Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?



Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.


----------



## jillian

frank baby psychotic troll with no values.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> frank baby psychotic troll with no values.



Frank brings facts and documents, FBI memos, Soviet papers confirming McCarthy, Jillain brings an Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear

Frank wins again by default.

Do keep coming back with these pithy comments and insights because I have no hesitancy whatsoever to run up the score


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Nancy Reagan consulted psychics, FDR consulted Communists


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?

It's pretty quiet, that can only mean Progressives chugged their STFU Juice

Here's the list of people who should have had seats alongside Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

Lauchlin Currie
Solomon Adler
V Frank Coe
Cedric Belfrage
T.A. Bisson
Harold Glasser
David Karr
Mary Jane Keeney
Leonard Mins
Franz Newmann


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us a list of all the people McCarthy claimed were Soviet agents working in the government, please?
> 
> And also a list of those who he exposed as Soviet agents that history has proven to actually BE Soviet agents?
> 
> That would be very helpful for us to understand just how effective the man was in exposing Soviets, and also helpful for us to understand how many innocent people whose lives were ruined by him.
> 
> A simple list will do, Cru.
> 
> A list that shows all the people he accused of being Soviet agents including notations showing us which of those truly were agents.
> 
> Think you can do that for us?
> 
> I'd appreciate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lauchlin Currie
> Solomon Adler
> V Frank Coe
> Cedric Belfrage
> T.A. Bisson
> Harold Glasser
> David Karr
> Mary Jane Keeney
> Leonard Mins
> Franz Newmann
> 
> All from the book.  All documented.
Click to expand...


Even after the scandal of the Rosenberg cell emerging from the Army, the Army was still employing security risks. Beginning in early 1953, of a whole year, Army intelligence issued urgent warnings about Captain Irving Peress, reports stating that Peress was an active member of the Communist Party, that he was very disloyal and untrustworthy. Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarty: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of Americas Most Hated Senator, p. 248 

 He was thought to be organizing a Communist cell on the Army base. His company commander wanted him dismissed on grounds of national security.  David Oshinsky, A Conspiracy So Immense, p. 366-367  

Instead the Army promoted him to Major! McCarty exposed the Armys stupidity in dealing with Peress. The result?  Honorable discharge.  And McCarty was attacked by Vermont Republican Senator Flanders, stating the Peress was merely a pink dentist in New Jersey.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communists in the US Government... handed China to Mao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me question the whole book right there.
Click to expand...


That one line exposes your total ignorance of the times and the forces at work. Needless to say, that doesn't prevent you from having strong opinions on the matter...

Read and learn:

Although born in the U.S., [Owen]Lattimore was raised in Tianjin, China, where his parents, David and Margaret Lattimore, were teachers of English at a Chinese university.

Owen Lattimore (July 29, 1900 &#8211; May 31, 1989) was an American author, educator, and influential scholar of Central Asia, especially Mongolia. In the 1930s he was editor of Pacific Affairs, a journal published by the Institute of Pacific Relations, and then taught at Johns Hopkins University from 1938 to 1963. During World War II he was advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and the American government and contributed extensively to the public debate.

Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Lattimore U.S. advisor to Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek. In 1944, Lattimore was placed in charge of the Pacific area for the Office of War Information.[5] At President Roosevelt's request, he accompanied US Vice-President Henry Wallace on a mission to Siberia and to China and Mongolia in 1944, for the US Office of War Information.[6] The trip had been arranged by Lauchlin Currie, who recommended to FDR that Lattimore accompany Wallace.[7] 

 Alfred Kohlberg,...accused Lattimore of being hostile to Chiang and too sympathetic towards Chinese Communists.

Owen Lattimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lattimore was found to be a &#8220;conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy&#8221; by a unanimous Senate committee (William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, McCarty and His Enemies, p. 274, quoting the Congressional Record) 

The ever-intrepid Evans (M. Stanton Evans, author of Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and his fight Against America's Enemies,)  has produced a memo from Lou Nichols of the FBI saying he couldn't understand what had come over Tydings &#8212; that the Maryland Democrat knew very well that Director Hoover had said that if he had been on the Loyalty Board, he would have questioned any attempt to clear Lattimore, and that he regarded the IPR icon as a security risk and would never have hired him at the Bureau.
&#8226;	Lattimore had conferred (during the Hitler-Stalin pact) with the Soviet ambassador about Lattimore's upcoming assignment as President Roosevelt's adviser to Chiang-Kai-Shek &#8212; then trying to fend off the Communist revolution in his country.
&#8226;	Credible testimony revealed "five episodes" wherein Lattimore &#8212; within the Politburo of the Communist Party &#8212; "participated as a full participant in the conspiracy."
&#8226;	A former brigadier-general in the Soviet military intelligence testified to having been told that "Lattimore was one of our men."
&#8226;	On page 218 of the McCarran committee's voluminous report of its year-long investigation, this bottom line: "[T]he subcommittee can come to no other conclusion but that Lattimore was for some time beginning in the 1930s a conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy."
The documented truth about the McCarthy investigations

Owen Lattimore, the most famous of McCarthy's "victims," has finally come out, thanks to a former Chinese espionage agent's memoirs and declassified FBI files, which go a long way to vindicate McCarthy's original charges. In retrospect, the cause McCarthy made his own &#8212; anticommunism &#8212; has proved to be more valid and durable than the basic assumptions of his anti-anti-Communist critics. 
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/herman-mccarthy.html

We now know that Mao Tse-tung was not a progressive nationalist forced into the Soviet camp by American hostility and incomprehension, as revisionist scholars in the seventies like to pretend, but was a brutal and dedicated Communist who enthusiastically embraced Stalin from the beginning. Historians J. E. Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Ronald Radosh, Allan Weinstein, and Alexander Vassiliev have used new declassified American materials as well as Soviet sources to lay to rest any doubts about the Soviet Union's espionage activities, as well as the Communist Party's active support of it. 

Men like Lattimore were counted on for advice, and in perfect positions to see that Communist designs were carried out.

[Harry Dexter] White engineered the Treasury's fatal delay in providing a promised loan to support the currency of Nationalist China, then in its epochal struggle with the Chinese Communists. As Morgan remarks, "Failure to receive the loan in time was only part of the cause of Chiang Kai-shek's downfall, but it counted." (Who lost China?)
The Claremont Institute - A Closer Look Under The Bed


----------



## American Horse

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communists in the US Government... handed China to Mao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me question the whole book right there.
Click to expand...




Soviet agents in the U.S. State department (and Treasury) worked actively to damage confidence of our government, in the (Nationalist) Chinese fighting in their own country, as our allies against the Japanese, and in favor of the Communist unsurgency of Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En-Lai. 
While Chiang Kai-Shek was busy as our ally fighting the Japanese, White, Currie, Coe, Glasser, and Hiss were doing all they could to undermine him in favor of Mao and the communists:

From the book,  "Blacklisted. . . "

&#8220;Less visible at the time, but equally crucial for the fate of China, were manipulations on the Treasury side of things, where concerted efforts were under way to enforce the policy of financial strangulation Adler had set forth to White.  Records of this anti-Chiang campaign including cables, memos, and transcripts of meetings, reveal an astounding case of players -- [Harry Dexter] White, Lauchlin Currie, V. Frank Coe, Harold Glasser, and Alger hiss among them.  And, when in the United States, Sol Adler would sit in as well.  The operative principle seemed to be that at least two secret Moscow agents had to be in the room -- and sometimes more than two -- for the meetings to be official. The comrades must have been bumping into each other in the Treasury hallways as they made their way to these important sessions.

Especially notable were scenes in late 1944 and early &#8217;45, bracketing the Adler memo to White on cutting off the flow of funds to Chiang.  In these conclaves, Morgenthau kept asking his staff about the gold loan promised to KMT finance minister Kung.  The Secretary was being badgered by Kung and was asking his advisers why the gold was not delivered.  They patiently explained that there were technical issues, shipping problems, glitches: and anyway, the gold would be wasted on the corrupt regime of Chiang. An extremely candid version of the matter would be supplied by White, who admitted in so many words that the loan had been deliberately obstructed.  After his amazingly frank discussion of the gold loan record, White still undertook to persuade Morgenthau that the Treasury had been right in its obstructionism, &#8220;because the money is being badly used.&#8221; Others from time to time would discuss the issue with Morgenthau in similar fashion, suggesting that the gold be withheld or doled out in driblets.  Among those arguing this were Adler, on one of his excursions back to D.C., and V. Frank Coe -- who would later join with Adler in fleeing to Red China. All three of the Morgenthau advisers plying him with this counsel would show up in FBI records, congressional hearings, and Venona papers as Soviet agents.

On the Merits of what John Service did, as noted much has been said down through the years to suggest he was merely &#8220;reporting&#8221; what he saw and couldn&#8217;t be blamed for having done so.  It&#8217;s note-worthy, however, that what Service allegedly saw wasn&#8217;t seen by other observers who knew far more about the relevant matters than did he. This was particularly true of his (and Adler&#8217;s) repeated statements that only the Chinese Communists were fighting the Japanese, while Chiang Kai-Shek did nothing. 

General Albert Wedemeyer, a true military expert in charge of the war against Japan in China for many months, would flatly contradict these Service-Adler statements.  According to Wedemeyer, the Chinese Reds did little fighting against the Japanese and were no help to him in the conduct of the struggle. &#8220;No Communist Chinese forces,&#8221; said Wedemeyer, &#8220;fought in any major battles of the Sino-Japanese war. . . &#8221;  From intelligence data he was receiving, he said, &#8220;I knew that  Mao Tse-Tung, Chou En-Lai and the other Chinese Communists leaders were not interested in fighting the Japanese because their main concern was to occupy the territory which the Nationalist forces evacuated in their retreat.  

In fact, as shown by historians familiar with the Chinese-language Communists sources, the truth of the matter went well beyond this. In his study of the OSS in China during World War II, Naval Academy historian Maochun Yu observes that tales of the Communists&#8217; &#8220;valiant fighting&#8221; (his quote marks) masked a policy of outright collaboration between Yenan and the Japanese invaders.  He recounts one episode in which a U.S. reconnaissance team parachuted into northern China only to find the Communists and Japanese camped out a few miles apart and peacefully coexisting; another in which a Japanese puppet ruler was selling arms to the Yenan Reds for use against Chiang&#8217;s army.&#8221;


Click on the below link to read from Blacklisted by History, particulary pages 99 through 109:

 Chapter 8: Chunking, 1944


----------



## Cecilie1200

editec said:


> Everything I've read or heard from those who were involved with the HUAC hearings leads me to think that McCarthy was a nasty, hateful, lying, power-hungry drunk.
> 
> That leads me to want to read what this apologist for McCarthy has to say.
> 
> I owe no alligance to anything but the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Even if the truth I find conflicts with what I previously thought was the truth.



If you've been reading anything that led you to believe McCarthy had shit to do with the HUAC, then the writer was a big, fat, stinking liar and you should take your "pursuit of the truth" to his house and beat him senseless.


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt much care for Joseph McCarthys ends, but I always admired his methods.
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> "I never liked Nixon until Watergate."
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> 
> Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best -- Frank Zappa
Click to expand...


Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.

The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.

Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.

*The Commissar Vanishes*
I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.

Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.


----------



## uscitizen

CrusaderFrank said:


> The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.
> 
> Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!
> 
> Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)
> 
> Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!



Frank you do realize that a book does not care what anyone prints on it's pages don't ya?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt much care for Joseph McCarthys ends, but I always admired his methods.
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> "I never liked Nixon until Watergate."
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> 
> Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best -- Frank Zappa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.
> 
> The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.
> 
> Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.
> 
> *The Commissar Vanishes*
> I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.
Click to expand...


I'm looking for the meaningful, substantive content in this post, and I'm just not seeing it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

uscitizen said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.
> 
> Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!
> 
> Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)
> 
> Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank you do realize that a book does not care what anyone prints on it's pages don't ya?
Click to expand...


Congratulations!  You've succeeded in having even less content in YOUR post than Bfgrn had in his.  I wouldn't have thought that possible without a revision of physics laws, but you did it!


----------



## Bfgrn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best -- Frank Zappa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.
> 
> The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.
> 
> Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.
> 
> *The Commissar Vanishes*
> I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm looking for the meaningful, substantive content in this post, and I'm just not seeing it.
Click to expand...


Have your mommy explain it


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.
> 
> The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.
> 
> Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.
> 
> *The Commissar Vanishes*
> I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for the meaningful, substantive content in this post, and I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have your mommy explain it
Click to expand...


She says you're full of shit, and very resentful of that fact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;I didn&#8217;t much care for Joseph McCarthy&#8217;s ends, but I always admired his methods.&#8221;
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> "I never liked Nixon until Watergate."
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> 
> Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best -- Frank Zappa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.
> 
> The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.
> 
> Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.
> 
> *The Commissar Vanishes*
> I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.
Click to expand...


Your Goebbels Big Lie Machine is destroyed. 

When Progressives ran the media, you used to be able to tell lies like that and get away with it, but those days are done.

You are now on record supporting the efforts of Communist spies throughout our government even after their identity as such has been verified by Moscow.

I posted 10 names of people McCarthy named as Communist spies, people who shifted US policy toward Progressive heroes Stalin and Mao, histories 2 greatest Mass Murderers.

You cannot name a single "Innocent person" whose life was ruined by McCarthy.  Not one!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

uscitizen said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.
> 
> Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!
> 
> Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)
> 
> Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank you do realize that a book does not care what anyone prints on it's pages don't ya?
Click to expand...


That's it? That's what took a whole week?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best -- Frank Zappa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.
> 
> The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.
> 
> Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.
> 
> *The Commissar Vanishes*
> I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm looking for the meaningful, substantive content in this post, and I'm just not seeing it.
Click to expand...


There's a very good reason why, it's because there isn't any


----------



## geauxtohell

You can also call Penthouse an "anatomy book" but that doesn't make it so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Frank, you need to heed Zappa's advice.
> 
> The depth and scope of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Joe McCarthy is the ultimate poster boy for Statism. And you are a blind, ignorant devout Statist Frank. McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people. It is EXACTLY over-intrusive government. It is violation of personal privacy, guilt by association and innuendo. It totally trashes every freedom we boast about as a free and open society.
> 
> Frank, you are not only a Statist; you, McCarthy and M Stanton Evans would fit perfectly in Stalin's Politburo, until YOU came under suspicion and vanished.
> 
> *The Commissar Vanishes*
> I have this pretty incredible book that involves some of the earliest 'photo manipulation'. It's called 'The Commissar Vanishes, and it's a collection of photos dated back to Stalin's purges of the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> Basically, if you were a member of the Soviet Politburo, and you were on the 'outs' with Stalin (probably headed to the Gulag or executed) your image in a photo would be erased along with any memory of you. It was the ultimate form of damage control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for the meaningful, substantive content in this post, and I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a very good reason why, it's because there isn't any
Click to expand...


I suspected, but I just found it so hard to believe that anyone would use that many words to say nothing whatsoever that related to the thread topic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

geauxtohell said:


> You can also call Penthouse an "anatomy book" but that doesn't make it so.



But you haven't actually picked up the book, right?

Have you even heard of Venona before today?

You can keep spouting the lies you've been told your whole life, but that doesn't make them true.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Cecilie1200 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for the meaningful, substantive content in this post, and I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a very good reason why, it's because there isn't any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspected, but I just found it so hard to believe that anyone would use that many words to say nothing whatsoever that related to the thread topic.
Click to expand...


I'd like to think its because Progressive have taken another look at the mountain of evidence that's come out supporting McCarthy Central Thesis and are no longer comfortable standing up for spies, traitors and scumbags who sold out the USA in favor of histories 2 greatest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao, but I know better.

It's because we know they have no facts to back up the opinions they've taken as their own on McCarthy.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communists in the US Government... handed China to Mao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me question the whole book right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to take up reading, if not as a hobby, then as an occasional distraction
Click to expand...


Frank, I don't think its possible to rationally examine the Chinese Civil war and come to the conclusion that the US Government handed Mao China. The "pro-democracy" side, and you have to be very very loose about what it means to be "pro-democracy" to even say that, was incredibly corrupt and inept.  Most Chinese didn't care a whit about Communism, they just wanted to be rid of their "democratic" corrupt leadership. 

Not only that, the USA blew a shot to gain a powerful ally against Russia thanks to McCarthyism.  To say China and Russia are both Communist requires that you use a very very broad definition of communism.  Its kinda like saying a housecat and a lion are both cats.  Chinese Communism and Russian Communism are two very different things with different historical roots and different ideologies playing into them.  We couldn't see the fact that the Chinese hated and despised the Russians, and instead pushed the two together.  The Chinese and the Russians have always distrusted each other, evidenced by the sheer amount of hardware these "Communist brothers" have continuously devoted to guarding their shared border.

We repeated that mistake again later when it came to Vietnam.  Communism in Vietnam was more about nationalism.  The Vietnamese distrusted the Chinese and hated them.  It was only when they found themselves at war with the US (again because the US doggedly looked to support a corrupt "democratic" regime) that they allied with China.

The inability to examine rationally what was going on robbed us of the ability to play off Communist factions against each other and extended the Cold War by decades.  McCarthyism plays a big role in why that happened.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me question the whole book right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take up reading, if not as a hobby, then as an occasional distraction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank, I don't think its possible to rationally examine the Chinese Civil war and come to the conclusion that the US Government handed Mao China. The "pro-democracy" side, and you have to be very very loose about what it means to be "pro-democracy" to even say that, was incredibly corrupt and inept.  Most Chinese didn't care a whit about Communism, they just wanted to be rid of their "democratic" corrupt leadership.
> 
> Not only that, the USA blew a shot to gain a powerful ally against Russia thanks to McCarthyism.  To say China and Russia are both Communist requires that you use a very very broad definition of communism.  Its kinda like saying a housecat and a lion are both cats.  Chinese Communism and Russian Communism are two very different things with different historical roots and different ideologies playing into them.  We couldn't see the fact that the Chinese hated and despised the Russians, and instead pushed the two together.  The Chinese and the Russians have always distrusted each other, evidenced by the sheer amount of hardware these "Communist brothers" have continuously devoted to guarding their shared border.
> 
> We repeated that mistake again later when it came to Vietnam.  Communism in Vietnam was more about nationalism.  The Vietnamese distrusted the Chinese and hated them.  It was only when they found themselves at war with the US (again because the US doggedly looked to support a corrupt "democratic" regime) that they allied with China.
> 
> The inability to examine rationally what was going on robbed us of the ability to play off Communist factions against each other and extended the Cold War by decades.  McCarthyism plays a big role in why that happened.
Click to expand...


You really need to read the book, if not the chapter entire chapter "Chungking, 1944" then only the few paragraphs on how Communist spies at State and Treasury handed China to Mao because he was "Democratic" and "Progressive" and was following an "abandonment of any pure Communist program"  and would bring Democracy to China "without the need of violent social upheaval"  That's our State Department. That's Sol Adler. That's John Stewart Service.  They should have had seats alongside the Rosenberg's.

And that's Mao they're talking about, history's biggest mass murderer.

This really is a big fucking deal and it's all been confirmed by Moscow and the FBI records.

You can continue to to tout the "McCarthy was a very bad man" line all day and night, it does not change the facts, he was 100% correct and vastly understated the problem


----------



## Trajan

The first among these "archive dive"  tell all books was Venona - Soviet Espionage & American Response, 4 years later, an even deeper look,  The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive  came out which as in independent source confirmed Venona and bushel of other FBI  information on record and added some new twists as well. I read them both and there are some actually laughable as "anything that can go wrong will" moments, BUT they were deadly serious. 

The simple fact is almost everyone charged back  during the 'red scare' _was_ guilty and a huge proportion of the critique leveled at Huac and the other investigations etc.  charges as to over the top zeal in pursing communist cells, agents etc.  they weren't over th top at all, the threat was here and it was real.  

Thee Rosenbergs, guilty as charged , Alger Hiss, guilty as charged, Owen Lattimore guilty etc etc etc...

Unbelievably, you  still find folks out there disputing the charges. In Berkeley you can trip over them. 

Oh and recently an FBI archive, corroborated by Soviet doc;s  has Howard Zinn  as red as they thought he was, and from the beginning right after WW2, ....I mean its not a great big surprise but his defenders will tell you he wasn't a Red.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take up reading, if not as a hobby, then as an occasional distraction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, I don't think its possible to rationally examine the Chinese Civil war and come to the conclusion that the US Government handed Mao China. The "pro-democracy" side, and you have to be very very loose about what it means to be "pro-democracy" to even say that, was incredibly corrupt and inept.  Most Chinese didn't care a whit about Communism, they just wanted to be rid of their "democratic" corrupt leadership.
> 
> Not only that, the USA blew a shot to gain a powerful ally against Russia thanks to McCarthyism.  To say China and Russia are both Communist requires that you use a very very broad definition of communism.  Its kinda like saying a housecat and a lion are both cats.  Chinese Communism and Russian Communism are two very different things with different historical roots and different ideologies playing into them.  We couldn't see the fact that the Chinese hated and despised the Russians, and instead pushed the two together.  The Chinese and the Russians have always distrusted each other, evidenced by the sheer amount of hardware these "Communist brothers" have continuously devoted to guarding their shared border.
> 
> We repeated that mistake again later when it came to Vietnam.  Communism in Vietnam was more about nationalism.  The Vietnamese distrusted the Chinese and hated them.  It was only when they found themselves at war with the US (again because the US doggedly looked to support a corrupt "democratic" regime) that they allied with China.
> 
> The inability to examine rationally what was going on robbed us of the ability to play off Communist factions against each other and extended the Cold War by decades.  McCarthyism plays a big role in why that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the book, if not the chapter entire chapter "Chungking, 1944" then only the few paragraphs on how Communist spies at State and Treasury handed China to Mao because he was "Democratic" and "Progressive" and was following an "abandonment of any pure Communist program"  and would bring Democracy to China "without the need of violent social upheaval"  That's our State Department. That's Sol Adler. That's John Stewart Service.  They should have had seats alongside the Rosenberg's.
> 
> And that's Mao they're talking about, history's biggest mass murderer.
> 
> This really is a big fucking deal and it's all been confirmed by Moscow and the FBI records.
> 
> You can continue to to tout the "McCarthy was a very bad man" line all day and night, it does not change the facts, he was 100% correct and vastly understated the problem
Click to expand...


Frank, I think we're talking at cross purposes.  You're talking about the US State Department's reaction to the Chinese Civil War.  I'm talking about the actual Chinese Civil War.  The sheer scale and scope of that war was so large as to be beyond our control.  A Japanese invasion in WWII didn't stop the Chinese Civil War.  It merely put the whole thing on pause until they could kick out the outsiders.

Short of an actual invasion of China, that whole thing was outside our ability to meaningfuly impact.  We helped drag out the Chinese Civil War.  For our efforts we were left unable to exploit the natural distrust between China and Russia.  The smart play when faced with multiple opponents that have a distrust of each other is to play up those issues and play them against each other.  Part of the result of McCarthyism is that instead of turning the Communists on each other, we encouraged them to work together.

That's the issue I have.  Saying we "Gave China to Mao" implies we had control of the situation in China and simply made the wrong choice.  _We never had China to lose_, so saying we lost China is just wrong.  The same can be said later about Vietnam as we make essentially the same mistakes there too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, I don't think its possible to rationally examine the Chinese Civil war and come to the conclusion that the US Government handed Mao China. The "pro-democracy" side, and you have to be very very loose about what it means to be "pro-democracy" to even say that, was incredibly corrupt and inept.  Most Chinese didn't care a whit about Communism, they just wanted to be rid of their "democratic" corrupt leadership.
> 
> Not only that, the USA blew a shot to gain a powerful ally against Russia thanks to McCarthyism.  To say China and Russia are both Communist requires that you use a very very broad definition of communism.  Its kinda like saying a housecat and a lion are both cats.  Chinese Communism and Russian Communism are two very different things with different historical roots and different ideologies playing into them.  We couldn't see the fact that the Chinese hated and despised the Russians, and instead pushed the two together.  The Chinese and the Russians have always distrusted each other, evidenced by the sheer amount of hardware these "Communist brothers" have continuously devoted to guarding their shared border.
> 
> We repeated that mistake again later when it came to Vietnam.  Communism in Vietnam was more about nationalism.  The Vietnamese distrusted the Chinese and hated them.  It was only when they found themselves at war with the US (again because the US doggedly looked to support a corrupt "democratic" regime) that they allied with China.
> 
> The inability to examine rationally what was going on robbed us of the ability to play off Communist factions against each other and extended the Cold War by decades.  McCarthyism plays a big role in why that happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to read the book, if not the chapter entire chapter "Chungking, 1944" then only the few paragraphs on how Communist spies at State and Treasury handed China to Mao because he was "Democratic" and "Progressive" and was following an "abandonment of any pure Communist program"  and would bring Democracy to China "without the need of violent social upheaval"  That's our State Department. That's Sol Adler. That's John Stewart Service.  They should have had seats alongside the Rosenberg's.
> 
> And that's Mao they're talking about, history's biggest mass murderer.
> 
> This really is a big fucking deal and it's all been confirmed by Moscow and the FBI records.
> 
> You can continue to to tout the "McCarthy was a very bad man" line all day and night, it does not change the facts, he was 100% correct and vastly understated the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank, I think we're talking at cross purposes.  You're talking about the US State Department's reaction to the Chinese Civil War.  I'm talking about the actual Chinese Civil War.  The sheer scale and scope of that war was so large as to be beyond our control.  A Japanese invasion in WWII didn't stop the Chinese Civil War.  It merely put the whole thing on pause until they could kick out the outsiders.
> 
> Short of an actual invasion of China, that whole thing was outside our ability to meaningfuly impact.  We helped drag out the Chinese Civil War.  For our efforts we were left unable to exploit the natural distrust between China and Russia.  The smart play when faced with multiple opponents that have a distrust of each other is to play up those issues and play them against each other.  Part of the result of McCarthyism is that instead of turning the Communists on each other, we encouraged them to work together.
> 
> That's the issue I have.  Saying we "Gave China to Mao" implies we had control of the situation in China and simply made the wrong choice.  _We never had China to lose_, so saying we lost China is just wrong.  The same can be said later about Vietnam as we make essentially the same mistakes there too.
Click to expand...


We're not at cross purposes, you choose to remain uneducated on the topic and unwilling to see how the US Government threw its support behind Mao.

Further debate is pointless until you tell me, "yes I read the 'Chungking 1944'" Chapter and have rethought my position on China


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to read the book, if not the chapter entire chapter "Chungking, 1944" then only the few paragraphs on how Communist spies at State and Treasury handed China to Mao because he was "Democratic" and "Progressive" and was following an "abandonment of any pure Communist program"  and would bring Democracy to China "without the need of violent social upheaval"  That's our State Department. That's Sol Adler. That's John Stewart Service.  They should have had seats alongside the Rosenberg's.
> 
> And that's Mao they're talking about, history's biggest mass murderer.
> 
> This really is a big fucking deal and it's all been confirmed by Moscow and the FBI records.
> 
> You can continue to to tout the "McCarthy was a very bad man" line all day and night, it does not change the facts, he was 100% correct and vastly understated the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, I think we're talking at cross purposes.  You're talking about the US State Department's reaction to the Chinese Civil War.  I'm talking about the actual Chinese Civil War.  The sheer scale and scope of that war was so large as to be beyond our control.  A Japanese invasion in WWII didn't stop the Chinese Civil War.  It merely put the whole thing on pause until they could kick out the outsiders.
> 
> Short of an actual invasion of China, that whole thing was outside our ability to meaningfuly impact.  We helped drag out the Chinese Civil War.  For our efforts we were left unable to exploit the natural distrust between China and Russia.  The smart play when faced with multiple opponents that have a distrust of each other is to play up those issues and play them against each other.  Part of the result of McCarthyism is that instead of turning the Communists on each other, we encouraged them to work together.
> 
> That's the issue I have.  Saying we "Gave China to Mao" implies we had control of the situation in China and simply made the wrong choice.  _We never had China to lose_, so saying we lost China is just wrong.  The same can be said later about Vietnam as we make essentially the same mistakes there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not at cross purposes, you choose to remain uneducated on the topic and unwilling to see how the US Government threw its support behind Mao.
> 
> Further debate is pointless until you tell me, "yes I read the 'Chungking 1944'" Chapter and have rethought my position on China
Click to expand...


Touché


----------



## JakeStarkey

Frank and PC are completely witless about the Chinese Civil War and the effect of the U.S. on it.  Absolutely no time needs to be spent on their bullshit.  If they tried this in a history class at university (even at the conservative ones), they would have received Fs for their work appropriately.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Frank and PC are completely witless about the Chinese Civil War and the effect of the U.S. on it.  Absolutely no time needs to be spent on their bullshit.  If they tried this in a history class at university (even at the conservative ones), they would have received Fs for their work appropriately.



Dolt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Failed student from Columbia College, Columbia, Missouri.

Who are you writing this for, lady?  Some significant other?  If this is what s/he values for, s/he has very little value for you.  I am sorry, but the truth is the truth.  There can be no other reason imaginable for you to write this tripe.  I hope you find comfort in it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Failed student from Columbia College, Columbia, Missouri.
> 
> Who are you writing this for, lady?  Some significant other?  If this is what s/he values for, s/he has very little value for you.  I am sorry, but the truth is the truth.  There can be no other reason imaginable for you to write this tripe.  I hope you find comfort in it.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]YouTube - Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar![/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

As I said, I hope you find some hope in what you are doing, but the day will come when you wake up and realize that you have been living in an unreal world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Frank and PC are completely witless about the Chinese Civil War and the effect of the U.S. on it.  Absolutely no time needs to be spent on their bullshit.  If they tried this in a history class at university (even at the conservative ones), they would have received Fs for their work appropriately.



That's my next mission.

You've been handing out F's to all the wrong people.

Nancy Reagan listened to astrologers and FDR listened to Communist spies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

There's literally tens of thousands of pages of recently declassified documents from both the FBI and the Soviets that not only completely vindicate McCarthy but show us he way understated the problem.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> As I said, I hope you find some hope in what you are doing, but the day will come when you wake up and realize that you have been living in an unreal world.



I try to respond to you, Jakey, out of pity...but sometimes I can't resist putting you in your place, i.e. identifying your pathology.

You post on a thread in which those of us on one side have documented, linked, engaged in scholarship and research,...and the best you can do- over and over- is post 'is not, is not, is not...."

OK, your call for attention is duly noted, now slink back into Non-entityville, population you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> There's literally tens of thousands of pages of recently declassified documents from both the FBI and the Soviets that not only completely vindicate McCarthy but show us he way understated the problem.



It's not surprising that he did.  The FBI was withholding a lot of information at the time so that the Soviets wouldn't find out that we had the ability to decrypt their communications.


----------



## Father Time

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank and PC are completely witless about the Chinese Civil War and the effect of the U.S. on it.  Absolutely no time needs to be spent on their bullshit.  If they tried this in a history class at university (even at the conservative ones), they would have received Fs for their work appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my next mission.
> 
> You've been handing out F's to all the wrong people.
> 
> Nancy Reagan listened to astrologers and FDR listened to Communist spies.
Click to expand...


Hard to tell which group is more full of shit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Father Time said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank and PC are completely witless about the Chinese Civil War and the effect of the U.S. on it.  Absolutely no time needs to be spent on their bullshit.  If they tried this in a history class at university (even at the conservative ones), they would have received Fs for their work appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my next mission.
> 
> You've been handing out F's to all the wrong people.
> 
> Nancy Reagan listened to astrologers and FDR listened to Communist spies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to tell which group is more full of shit.
Click to expand...


Stay uneducated. Don't pick up a book on Venona or McCarthy, that way you'll remain convinced you're correct when you make these asinine statements


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I hope you find some hope in what you are doing, but the day will come when you wake up and realize that you have been living in an unreal world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to respond to you, Jakey, out of pity...but sometimes I can't resist putting you in your place, i.e. identifying your pathology.
> 
> You post on a thread in which those of us on one side have documented, linked, engaged in scholarship and research,...and the best you can do- over and over- is post 'is not, is not, is not...."
> 
> OK, your call for attention is duly noted, now slink back into Non-entityville, population you.
Click to expand...


All can see that you are the bottom of the class, PC.

Your place as usual, for one who is out of touch with reality, is at the back of the class and in front of the professor's desk.  You are entitled to your uninformed opinion but you are not allowed false definitions and skewed evidence to manufacture a world that did not and does not exist.

You have been correctly marked down as Fail.   Now move along.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I hope you find some hope in what you are doing, but the day will come when you wake up and realize that you have been living in an unreal world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to respond to you, Jakey, out of pity...but sometimes I can't resist putting you in your place, i.e. identifying your pathology.
> 
> You post on a thread in which those of us on one side have documented, linked, engaged in scholarship and research,...and the best you can do- over and over- is post 'is not, is not, is not...."
> 
> OK, your call for attention is duly noted, now slink back into Non-entityville, population you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All can see that you are the bottom of the class, PC.
> 
> Your place as usual, for one who is out of touch with reality, is at the back of the class and in front of the professor's desk.  You are entitled to your uninformed opinion but you are not allowed false definitions and skewed evidence to manufacture a world that did not and does not exist.
> 
> You have been correctly marked down as Fail.   Now move along.
Click to expand...


Where was I when YOU were appointed professor and arbiter of what is and isn't "passing"?  In fact, where was I when anyone at all started considering your opinion worth the contents of my cat's litter box?

You wanna mark someone as "fail", Sparky, I suggest you actually start PROVING that they have, rather than just declaring it and expecting people to take you seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.

Pay attention to response of the loons: they will ignore the above truth and strike out into uncharted waters.  Fun to watch them splash around.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I hope you find some hope in what you are doing, but the day will come when you wake up and realize that you have been living in an unreal world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to respond to you, Jakey, out of pity...but sometimes I can't resist putting you in your place, i.e. identifying your pathology.
> 
> You post on a thread in which those of us on one side have documented, linked, engaged in scholarship and research,...and the best you can do- over and over- is post 'is not, is not, is not...."
> 
> OK, your call for attention is duly noted, now slink back into Non-entityville, population you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All can see that you are the bottom of the class, PC.
> 
> Your place as usual, for one who is out of touch with reality, is at the back of the class and in front of the professor's desk.  You are entitled to your uninformed opinion but you are not allowed false definitions and skewed evidence to manufacture a world that did not and does not exist.
> 
> You have been correctly marked down as Fail.   Now move along.
Click to expand...


That doesn't work anymore, Poseur. You lost your media monopoly, you can still say whatever the fuck you want, but you have nothing to back it up

There is literally a mountain of evidence backing McCarthy's Central Thesis. There were Communist spies at State, they supported Mao. That's all been verified.

Why are you supporting history's greatest Mass Murderer?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.
> 
> Pay attention to response of the loons: they will ignore the above truth and strike out into uncharted waters.  Fun to watch them splash around.



You're busted. Outed. Exposed. You can still hold the Progressive Party line but that facts are all out and they number in the *TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES*

Sol Adler was a Communist Spy.

John Stewart Service was a Communist Spy.

Owen Lattimore was a Communist Spy

Lauchie Currie was  Communist Spy

It's all been verified by Moscow.

What do you have to counter that, Poseur?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JakeStarkey said:


> The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.
> 
> Pay attention to response of the loons: they will ignore the above truth and strike out into uncharted waters.  Fun to watch them splash around.



The truth is that, alcoholic demagogue or not, he was STILL more patriotic and more correct than your entire party and end of the political spectrum, then and now.  It's gotta sting to know you suck that badly.

FYI, it's not called a "witch hunt" when you actually find what you were looking for.

Pay attention to the non-response of the JakeStarkey:  he will ignore the above truth and strike out into well-charted lies. Fun to watch him run like a scalded bitch.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.
> 
> Pay attention to response of the loons: they will ignore the above truth and strike out into uncharted waters.  Fun to watch them splash around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that, alcoholic demagogue or not, he was STILL more patriotic and more correct than your entire party and end of the political spectrum, then and now.  It's gotta sting to know you suck that badly.
> 
> FYI, it's not called a "witch hunt" when you actually find what you were looking for.
> 
> Pay attention to the non-response of the JakeStarkey:  he will ignore the above truth and strike out into well-charted lies. Fun to watch him run like a scalded bitch.
Click to expand...


It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.

I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.

Claiming McCarthy had insight is like praising me for my detective work when I claim that there is a corrupt politician in Washington.


----------



## Father Time

CrusaderFrank said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my next mission.
> 
> You've been handing out F's to all the wrong people.
> 
> Nancy Reagan listened to astrologers and FDR listened to Communist spies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to tell which group is more full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay uneducated. Don't pick up a book on Venona or McCarthy, that way you'll remain convinced you're correct when you make these asinine statements
Click to expand...


So you think Astrologers aren't full of shit or do you think communist spies aren't full of shit?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr.Traveler said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.
> 
> Pay attention to response of the loons: they will ignore the above truth and strike out into uncharted waters.  Fun to watch them splash around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that, alcoholic demagogue or not, he was STILL more patriotic and more correct than your entire party and end of the political spectrum, then and now.  It's gotta sting to know you suck that badly.
> 
> FYI, it's not called a "witch hunt" when you actually find what you were looking for.
> 
> Pay attention to the non-response of the JakeStarkey:  he will ignore the above truth and strike out into well-charted lies. Fun to watch him run like a scalded bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.
> 
> I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.
> 
> Claiming McCarthy had insight is like praising me for my detective work when I claim that there is a corrupt politician in Washington.
Click to expand...


How Starkey-like in the complete lack of any facts to back up an uneducated opinion.

I started this thread by saying that the list McCarthy used was stolen out of the National Archives in 1993. It was not THOUSANDS of names, but it should have been. It must have been accurate enough to terrify someone Communist loyalist to take it from the public domain.

Moreover, I've listed here key people that Roosevelt relied upon and took advise from and directed US policy that were genuine Communist spies, and handed Yugoslavia to Tito, Eastern Europe to Moscow and China to Mao.

If that's not enough to get angry about damage I don't what is!

Is that just not a big deal? Was turning Europe to Stalin and Mao to China just not a big enough deal?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Father Time said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to tell which group is more full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay uneducated. Don't pick up a book on Venona or McCarthy, that way you'll remain convinced you're correct when you make these asinine statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Astrologers aren't full of shit or do you think communist spies aren't full of shit?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? Seriously, I can't make heads or tails of it? Are you saying there were no spies or they just weren't effective? What?


----------



## Father Time

CrusaderFrank said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay uneducated. Don't pick up a book on Venona or McCarthy, that way you'll remain convinced you're correct when you make these asinine statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Astrologers aren't full of shit or do you think communist spies aren't full of shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Seriously, I can't make heads or tails of it? Are you saying there were no spies or they just weren't effective? What?
Click to expand...


I was making a joke saying both astrologers and commie spies are full of shit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Father Time said:


> Oh and speaking of venona
> 
> Return to Responses, Reflections and Occasional Papers // Return to Historical Writings



I've seen this analysis and before I spend several hours or days joining the names to FBI memos and cells lead by people listed in Venona and just to be absolutely clear, the Memo from State that started McCarthy, and was the basis for the first list was removed from the National Archives.

So, yes, the list of names is a big fucking deal as Biden would say
--------------------------
I spot checked 2 names off the list. I found nothing on the first Ted Arndt, but the second Donald C. Blaisdell, while not listed in Venona (again, it was not mean to be a list of EVERYONE, just the main assets and operations) but he does turn up at US State as a close associate of Alger Hiss and worth keeping an eye on


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.Traveler said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.
> 
> Pay attention to response of the loons: they will ignore the above truth and strike out into uncharted waters.  Fun to watch them splash around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that, alcoholic demagogue or not, he was STILL more patriotic and more correct than your entire party and end of the political spectrum, then and now.  It's gotta sting to know you suck that badly.
> 
> FYI, it's not called a "witch hunt" when you actually find what you were looking for.
> 
> Pay attention to the non-response of the JakeStarkey:  he will ignore the above truth and strike out into well-charted lies. Fun to watch him run like a scalded bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.
Click to expand...


It's a fuckload more impressive than the left not hitting that barn ONCE.  If being right were target shooting, the left apparently can't even hit the GROUND effectively.

And that's aside from the fact that ALL of McCarthy's bullets struck the target.



Dr.Traveler said:


> I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.
> 
> Claiming McCarthy had insight is like praising me for my detective work when I claim that there is a corrupt politician in Washington.



Sorry, Sparky, but that theory don't fly, neither.  For you to be correct (aside from a miracle), it would require that McCarthy made dozens and dozens of wild accusations, with only a few of them being correct and the rest being wrong.  As yet, you and your comrades have yet to point out EVEN ONE person McCarthy investigated who was not, at the very least, the security risk he claimed, and at most, a Soviet agent/useful idiot.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Leftists on the subject of McCarthy really do remind me of Mammy Yokum, stomping around and yelling, "I has spoken!", as though the fact that they have given us the script they have decided is "the way things really were" should settle all questions once and for all and pre-empt any revisiting of history.

The truth is that McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue who did not care about the welfare of America, who created a witch hunt to gather power to himself, and who was pulled down by his own party.  _"I has spoken!"_

Frank and PC are completely witless about the Chinese Civil War and the effect of the U.S. on it. Absolutely no time needs to be spent on their bullshit.  _"I has spoken!"_

McCarthyism is THE prime example in the 20th century that even in America a few devious authoritarians can turn the US government into a Stalin-like machine that destroys the lives of innocent people.  _"I has spoken!"_

Come to think of it, leftists are like that on virtually every subject.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie does not get I am Republican.

Cecilie does not get that true red-blooded Republicans pulled McCarthy down because of his lying demagoguery that threatened the stability of the Republic.

Cecilie does not get the faux far right of the GOP will not permitted to rewrite American history.

Cecilie will crawl under rock eventually.  She reminds of the commercial where the evil rattlesnake (Cecilie) with the baby rattle on the end of its tail ends up hiding from the laughter of the bunny rabbits.

Cecilie is so silly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie does not get I am Republican.
> 
> Cecilie does not get that true red-blooded Republicans pulled McCarthy down because of his lying demagoguery that threatened the stability of the Republic.
> 
> Cecilie does not get the faux far right of the GOP will not permitted to rewrite American history.
> 
> Cecilie will crawl under rock eventually.  She reminds of the commercial where the evil rattlesnake (Cecilie) with the baby rattle on the end of its tail ends up hiding from the laughter of the bunny rabbits.
> 
> Cecilie is so silly.



Jake? No one believes you're a Republican

You Leftist are modern Flat Earthers. Like the Flat Earthers, you have only your own rantings to show McCarthy was evil and wrong.  

Now evidence, solid physical evidence has come from both the FBI and the Soviets themselves that not only totally validate McCarthy's Central Thesis but show that if anything, he vastly understated the nature of the problem.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

CrusaderFrank said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us a list of all the people McCarthy claimed were Soviet agents working in the government, please?
> 
> And also a list of those who he exposed as Soviet agents that history has proven to actually BE Soviet agents?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lauchlin Currie
> Solomon Adler
> V Frank Coe
> Cedric Belfrage
> T.A. Bisson
> Harold Glasser
> David Karr
> Mary Jane Keeney
> Leonard Mins
> Franz Newmann
Click to expand...


While it's true that each of these is a documented Soviet agent, these are only _some _ of the McCarthy suspects implicated in covert relationships with Soviet intelligence _in the Venona decrypts_. As Evans shows, Venona is only a very small part of the story. Many other McCarthy suspects are equally damningly implicated by FBI surveillance, confessions, defectors, the CPUSA archives and the Soviet archives smuggled out by Mitrokhin and Vassiliev.

For example, John Stewart Service is not mentioned in that fraction of the Venona traffic which was intercepted and decrypted, but he was caught red-handed on OSS surveillance delivering the Nationalist Chinese order of battle to the secret Communist Philip Jaffe.

You will have a hard time finding where McCarthy ever accused most of these suspects (or any others) of being Soviet agents. What he generally did was to document a suspect's extensive involvement with Communist fronts, known Communists, and Soviet agents, and that they failed to report such contacts, in violation of the law that required them, as federal officials, to do so.

McCarthy generally argued that such suspects fell under the auspices of the Truman loyalty order (e.g., "sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means"), and therefore should have been dismissed from federal office as mandated by that executive order.

The fact that so many of McCarthy's suspects turned out also to be Soviet agents is gravy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mark LaRochelle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us a list of all the people McCarthy claimed were Soviet agents working in the government, please?
> 
> And also a list of those who he exposed as Soviet agents that history has proven to actually BE Soviet agents?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lauchlin Currie
> Solomon Adler
> V Frank Coe
> Cedric Belfrage
> T.A. Bisson
> Harold Glasser
> David Karr
> Mary Jane Keeney
> Leonard Mins
> Franz Newmann
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it's true that each of these are documented Soviet agents, these are only _some _ of the McCarthy suspects implicated in covert relationships with Soviet intelligence _in the Venona decrypts_. As Evans shows, Venona is only a very small part of the story. Many other McCarthy suspects are equally damningly implicated by FBI surveillance, confessions, defectors, the CPUSA archives and the Soviet archives smuggled out by Mitrokhin and Vassiliev.
> 
> For example, John Stewart Service is not mentioned in that fraction of the Venona traffic which was intercepted and decrypted, but he was caught red-handed on OSS surveillance delivering the Nationalist Chinese order of battle to the secret Communist Philip Jaffe.
> 
> You will have a hard time finding where McCarthy ever accused most of these suspects (or any others) of being Soviet agents. What he generally did was to document a suspect's extensive involvement with Communist fronts, known Communists, and Soviet agents, and that they failed to report such contacts, in violation of the law that required them, as federal officials, to do so.
> 
> McCarthy generally argued that such suspects fell under the auspices of the Truman loyalty order (e.g., "sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means"), and therefore should have been dismissed from the federal office as mandated by that executive order.
> 
> The fact that so many of McCarthy's suspects also turned out to be Soviet agents is gravy.
Click to expand...


I confess that thanks to a concerted effort by my teachers and media, I was totally lied to and mislead about McCarthy.

The facts tell a completely different story


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communists in the US Government... handed China to Mao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me question the whole book right there.
Click to expand...


I had the same reaction.

Until I read _Blacklisted by History_, I didn't know that the Soviet agent Solomon Adler was the source of falsified data on China provided to Marshall, Weidemeyer, and the State Department and used to formulate our catastrophic (70 million murdered) China policy. (I also didn't know that Adler was still at Treasury when McCarthy made his charges, whereupon he abruptly resigned and defected to Communist China, where he became a foreign espionage official.)

I didn't know that Adler's roommate and collaborator, John Stewart Service, falsified intelligence to harm U.S. ally China and aid the Communist Chinese rebels; that the Comintern regarded Service as a reliable intelligence source; that he was a close contact of Soviet agent Harry Dexter White; that he was caught red-handed covertly delivering the Nationalist Chinese Order of Battle to the secret Communist Philip Jaffe, or that he beat that rap through a "fix" engineered by the Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie. I also didn't know that it was only after McCarthy brought public attention to his case that the State Department finally dismissed Service in 1951. (Although portrayed  for decades as an innocent martyr to McCarthyism, shortly before his death in 1999 Service confessed that he had falsified intelligence to aid the Communists in China because "I wanted them to win.")

I didn't know that Virginius Frank Coe conspired with Soviet agent Harry Dexter White to deliver U.S. occupation currency printing plates to the Soviets, or to obstruct a crucial gold loan to Nationalist China, ordered by FDR. (I also didn't know that, after declining on grounds of potential self-incrimination to answer McCarthy's query as to whether he had been involved in Soviet espionage, Coe departed the IMF abruptly in 1952, defecting, like Adler, to Communist China, where he worked as a government propagandist.)

I learned many other things from this book about policy subversion by Soviet agents in the U.S. government in the betrayal not just of China, but of Poland, Yugoslavia and other countries.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

And to this very day, even AFTER the USSR confirmed McCarthy was correct, Progressives line up to deride McCarthy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mark, go ahead and carefully check out the footnotes and then the source.  Do your due diligence.  Your opinion may well change.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Bfgrn said:


> &#8220;I didn&#8217;t much care for Joseph McCarthy&#8217;s _ends_, but I always admired his _methods_.&#8221;
> M. Stanton Evans
> 
> "I never liked Nixon until Watergate."
> M. Stanton Evans



As you probably know, these are jokes, in the style of George Bernard Shaw's "Work is the curse of the drinking class."

See William F. Meehan, III, "Evans, M. Stanton," _First Principles_, April 17, 2008: "A humorous speaker (example: &#8220;I didn&#8217;t much care for Joseph McCarthy&#8217;s _ends_, but I always admired his _methods_&#8221 and highly sought-after master of ceremonies..."

Also see James C. Roberts, "CPAC Over 30 Years: Conservatives Have Come a Long Way," _Human Events_, February 3, 2003: "Employing the droll, contrarian humor that has so endeared him to conservatives, Evans noted that he "never liked Nixon _until _ Watergate."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Mark, go ahead and carefully check out the footnotes and then the source.  Do your due diligence.  Your opinion may well change.



LOL!

From a guy who never picked the book up!


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> Mark, go ahead and carefully check out the footnotes and then the source.  Do your due diligence.  Your opinion may well change.



If you read the acknowledgments, you will see that I was involved in the research for _Blacklisted by History_. During the production process for this book, I read literally thousands of pages of primary source documents on McCarthy's cases.

Please identify the particular footnotes or sources that are in error, so I can bring the errors to the author's attention. Thank you in advance for your help.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have accepted the spin, then, and I will accept that you have accepted that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's a tough thing to realized you've been lied to your whole life.  Some people can come to terms with it and accept the truth and move on, others just mumble something about "Footnotes" and "Spin" and remain ignorant


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Dr.Traveler said:


> Frank, I don't think its possible to rationally examine the Chinese Civil war and come to the conclusion that the US Government handed Mao China. The "pro-democracy" side, and you have to be very very loose about what it means to be "pro-democracy" to even say that, was incredibly corrupt and inept.



If you read _Blacklisted by History_, the Morgenthau diaries, or the Amerasia papers, you will see that every forensic attempt to trace the source of this image of the Nationalist Chinese as "incredibly corrupt and inept" (and of the Communists as "democratic") traces directly back to Soviet agent Solomon Adler and his Chungking housemate and collaborator, John Stewart Service.

These views were flatly contradicted by more knowledgeable observers at the time, including the OSS team that parachuted into China for the purpose of assisting the Chinese in their defense against the Japanese invasion. This Service-Adler version has since been thoroughly demolished by historians such as Maochun Yu and Jung Chang.

It is instructive that neither Service nor Adler found the Nationalists to be corrupt or inept for most of the war, when the Soviet line was to support the Chinese government to keep Japan from attacking the Soviet far east. When it became apparent that Japan was losing its foothold China, the Soviet line flip-flopped, now denouncing the Nationalist Chinese government as "fascist," etc., as opposed to the "democratic" Communists. It was at this moment that Service and Adler suddenly discovered the corruption and ineptitude of the Nationalists.

As Evans commented, if the Soviet agents in the U.S. government didn't contribute to the fall of China to the Communists, it wasn't for lack of trying.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Dr.Traveler said:


> I'm talking about the actual Chinese Civil War.  The sheer scale and scope of that war was so large as to be beyond our control....
> 
> Short of an actual invasion of China, that whole thing was outside our ability to meaningfuly impact....



Clearly, the Soviets disagreed with your assessment. That's why they invested so much effort in getting Soviet agents like Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White and Chi Chao-ting into positions (such as the White House or Chinese Currency Stabilization Board) where they could manipulate the Chinese currency and subvert U.S. policy, for example, choking off Roosevelt's crucial gold loan to China, at the exact moment the Soviets were massively stepping up their aid to the Communist rebels.



Dr.Traveler said:


> The same can be said later about Vietnam as we make essentially the same mistakes there too.



That's true. The same State Department coterie that plotted the assassination of the effective anti-Communist Chiag Kai-shek in China was later able to actually carry through its plot to assassinate the effective anti-Communist Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Dr.Traveler said:


> It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.
> 
> I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.



Could you list the McCarthy suspects who were innocent?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mark LaRochelle said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.
> 
> I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you list the McCarthy suspects who were innocent?
Click to expand...


We've been asking for a while and the answer we get are either: Zero Mostel or

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg[/ame]

And it's more likely that crickets were at US State than Zero Mostel


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mark LaRochelle said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.
> 
> I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you list the McCarthy suspects who were innocent?
Click to expand...


We've been asking them that all this time, so don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ceclie1200 won't tell you that she has been given the lists over and over and over.   And she will continue to lie about that over and over and over.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Ceclie1200 won't tell you that she has been given the lists over and over and over.



I must have lost my copy. Could you repost it, Amazing Randy?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JakeStarkey said:


> Ceclie1200 won't tell you that she has been given the lists over and over and over.



You're right, I WON'T tell him that . . . because it's not true.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The reactionary wing of the right attempts to rehabilitate McCarthy.

For their support of Evans' work, you can read 147 reviews at [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/product-reviews/140008105X/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2]Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies[/ame].  How amazing they almost every last one support the work.  How about that.

A nuanced comment comes from a writer who is does not hate the work but is concerned about it.  In part, it reads "As a child, following these events with a juvenile mind, I was very greatly turned away from Senator McCarthy when I heard this kind of accusation &#8212; not only of General Marshall, but also of General Eisenhower. In the period after World War II, those two leaders &#8212; unsurprisingly &#8212; were held in very high esteem. Senator McCarthy did himself no favors when he attacked their loyalty. "  For the more favorable parts in this review of the work, go to Reader Comments | Blacklisted by History


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The reactionary wing of the right attempts to rehabilitate McCarthy.
> 
> For their support of Evans' work, you can read 147 reviews at Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies.  How amazing they almost every last one support the work.  How about that.
> 
> A nuanced comment comes from a writer who is does not hate the work but is concerned about it.  In part, it reads "As a child, following these events with a juvenile mind, I was very greatly turned away from Senator McCarthy when I heard this kind of accusation  not only of General Marshall, but also of General Eisenhower. In the period after World War II, those two leaders  unsurprisingly  were held in very high esteem. Senator McCarthy did himself no favors when he attacked their loyalty. "  For the more favorable parts in this review of the work, go to Reader Comments | Blacklisted by History



Well, once you and the writer grow out of your juvenile minds we can have a real talk.

How are you making out on the list of "State Dept Officials Ruined by McCarthy"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank, you are as hypersensitive as the other reactionary toids, aren't you?  Read the reviews.  I will put you back on ignore.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank, you are as hypersensitive as the other reactionary toids, aren't you?  Read the reviews.  I will put you back on ignore.





The Reviewers hated "Houses of the Holy" when it came out and my attitude then as now is, "Why listen to reviewers when you can just read the source material and form your own opinion"

Jake's List of State Department Officials Ruined by McCarthy.

End of List.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Mark LaRochelle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, go ahead and carefully check out the footnotes and then the source.  Do your due diligence.  Your opinion may well change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify the particular footnotes or sources that are in error, so I can bring the errors to the author's attention. Thank you in advance for your help.
Click to expand...




Mark LaRochelle said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not overly impressive when you hit the broadside of a barn with a machine gun and a 1000 or so bullets.
> 
> I have no doubt that McCarthy actually found a few Communists.  During the Red Scare so many people were accussed of being Communists that you practically had to have hit someone.  Somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you list the McCarthy suspects who were innocent?
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> "As a child, following these events with a juvenile mind, I was very greatly turned away from Senator McCarthy when I heard this kind of accusation &#8212; not only of General Marshall, but also of General Eisenhower. In the period after World War II, those two leaders &#8212; unsurprisingly &#8212; were held in very high esteem. Senator McCarthy did himself no favors when he attacked their loyalty. "



McCarthy submitted more than one hundred names to the Senate for investigation. It's odd that whenever one asks for a list of those innocents whose lives he ruined, the response is never any of these suspects, but always a reference to McCarthy's infamous speech attacking Secretary of State George Marshall. Far from ruining Marshall's life, this speech may be said to have ruined McCarthy's, by making an enemy of Marshall's protege and strategic co-planner Eisenhower.

Regarding this notorious oration (penned by Forrest Davis), the writer you quote, retired State Department official Bob McMahon, agrees with M. Stanton Evans, who not only explains in _Blacklisted by History_ that McCarthy and Davis were wrong about Marshall, but shows why. (See pp. 413-414)

Regarding Eisenhower -- I recall Ike attacking McCarthy, but when did McCarthy attack Ike's loyalty? Can anyone supply a quote and a source?

Regarding the sophistication of children with respect to what they see on television, Jack Shafer of _Slate _ has written on the naivete even of adult Americans of the 1950s regarding the techniques of TV propaganda. (It's often said that a substantial number of Americans bought their first TV sets during the Army-McCarthy hearings.) Shafer makes some important points. (I am not yet permitted to post links, but will post some excerpts below.)

Susan Fries Falknor of Blue Ridge Forum writes, &#8220;I remember watching, fascinated, at the age of 13, as the Army-McCarthy Hearings unfolded on the family black-and-white TV set.&#8221; Of course, very few people actually watched these 36 days of hearings, at the end of which the Mundt panel exonerated McCarthy of the Army's charges (a generally forgotten fact). What the vast majority of Americans _did_ see was a series of dishonestly-edited vignettes (cherry-picked to put McCarthy in the worst possible light), taken out of context and cobbled together by Edward R. Murrow for &#8220;A Report on Joseph R. McCarthy,&#8221; an episode of his popular CBS show, _See It Now_.

Murrow targeted McCarthy in a misguided crusade to avenge the suicide (or SMERSH 'liquidation') of his close friend Laurence Duggan, a disgraced State Department official and Soviet agent -- even though McCarthy had nothing to do with Duggan, who was caught by the FBI.

During the Army-McCarthy hearings, the American public was largely unaware of the overwhelming media bias against anti-Communism, as demonstrated by the actual round of applause the attending Washington press corps gave the dissembling Army lawyer Robert Welch for his phony stage-hysterics -- just as it had given Alger Hiss for his perjured testimony. As _Saturday Evening Post_ writer Joseph Keeley revealed, such bias affected even the networks' placement of lighting and microphones.

Andrew Ferguson called Murrow's film &#8220;a compendium of every burp, grunt, stutter, nose probe, brutish aside, and maniacal giggle the senator had ever allowed to be captured on film.&#8221; (McCarthy may not be the only senator to have burped in the chamber, but he is the only one whose burp was not edited out, but preserved for posterity, repeatedly broadcast and featured in documentaries.)

Ms. Falknor recalls, &#8220;With the limited acuity of a Bethesda school girl, I judged McCarthy&#8217;s aide Roy Cohn repellent and Senator McCarthy himself repulsive. My parents fervently believed in the evil of 'McCarthyism'&#8212;already the most hateful political epithet in the lexicon.&#8221;

Into this atmosphere Murrow's program injected what Shafer calls &#8220;manipulative and partisan techniques.&#8221;

&#8220;Despite CBS's pretensions,&#8221; agrees McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, it &#8220;was not a report at all but a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using.&#8221;

&#8220;It is a peculiar work of journalism&#8212;there's very little reporting in it, as the transcript shows,&#8221; observes Shafer. &#8220;Murrow makes no attempt to determine if there is any substance to McCarthy's charges.&#8221;

The late William F. Buckley recounted how the television critic for _The New Yorker_ made the point that there wasn&#8217;t anybody in the world you couldn&#8217;t demolish by doing to him what Murrow did to McCarthy: &#8220;If there were five million feet of film on St. Francis of Assisi, you could probably find a shot of him running away naked from his father&#8217;s house (he did), and Ed Murrow could prove he was an exhibitionist and a poseur (he affected to talk to the birds!).&#8221;

&#8220;Give a skilled editor 15,000 feet of film of Barney the purple dinosaur,&#8221; agrees Shafer, &#8220;and he could perform a similar demolition.&#8221;

Former Kennedy administration official Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., observed that &#8220;Even anti-McCarthy commentators criticized the technique of offering as a 'report' what was in fact a superbly calculated attack.&#8221; Two of McCarthy's most hostile foes in the press, John Cogley and Gilbert Seldes (died-in-the-wool liberals both), agreed that Murrow's attack on McCarthy &#8220;was not a proud moment for television journalism.&#8221;

Cogley, a consistent McCarthy critic, writing in _Commonweal_, &#8220;sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips,&#8221; to produce a &#8220;simplistic view ... of a more complicated truth.&#8221; He observed that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light, warning against Murrow's abuses: &#8220;Television is dynamite. Combined with selectivity, it could explode in any person's or group's face.&#8221;

Seldes, another McCarthy foe, writing in the _Saturday Review_, critiqued Murrow's program as not a &#8220;report,&#8221; but &#8220;an all-out attack on McCarthy... the summing-up of a hanging judge... [T]he evidence and the argument&#8221; supporting McCarthy's side, he wrote, &#8220;were copiously available, but were not used.&#8221;

&#8220;Telecasts openly sponsored by political groups might indulge in one-sidedness without harmful effects, because allowance for bias would be made,&#8221; wrote Lately Thomas (Robert V. Steele) of the _Los Angeles Times_. But for a news report like Murrow's to inject such bias, he wrote, was utterly unfair, not just to the target, but to the audience.

Many insiders were disgusted by Murrow's dishonesty. According to Schlesinger, when Murrow rose to address a banquet honoring Robert F. Kennedy in 1955, Kennedy, who had served as assistant council to the McCarthy subcommittee, "grimly walked out."

Even Murrow himself &#8220;was always uneasy about&#8221; his attack on McCarthy, writes biographer A.M. Sperber, &#8220;almost anxious at times to disown it.&#8221; When _See It Now_ published its greatest hits as a hardcover book in 1955, observes Sperber, it did not include &#8220;A Report on Joseph R. McCarthy.&#8221;

After reading _Blacklisted by History_, Ms. Falknor reflected, &#8220;thanks to a dissembling media, our family had no comprehension of the brutal forces the senator was fighting.&#8221;

The late Robert Novak agreed, &#8220;The combination of forces against Joe McCarthy from the Left, from the news media, from both parties and his own president, had succeeded in aligning people like me against him. Stan Evans has described why we were wrong--because, indeed, McCarthy was fighting 'a conspiracy so immense.'&#8221;

Which brings us back to McMahon, the writer you quote above. He actually reviewed _Blacklisted by History_ for _Foreign Service Journal_. In that review, he summed up thus:



> *"This book will change forever how you think about Sen. McCarthy and the Soviet penetration of the U.S. government and society."*



I think that's true, but only if you actually bother to read it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, so the fauxconservatives are trying to rehabilitate him.  This is merely PC upgraded to MR 2.0.  Fail.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> OK, so the fauxconservatives are trying to rehabilitate him.  This is merely PC upgraded to MR 2.0.  Fail.



Translation: I'm ignorant about McCarthy and I choose to keep being nourished by the Progressive intellectual pablum I was spoon-fed over a generation ago.

Facts run off Jake like water off a ducks back


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have read about Joe McCarthy for forty years.  The left misunderstands him because there were truly commies among their ranks.  The fauxright refuses to understand him because he is one of theirs.  The fact is this: he castigated true Americans like Eisenhower and Marshall.  Screw him.  He is where he belongs: in historical purgatory, and Evans and the others will not rehabilitate in mainstream America's collective mind in even the next fifty years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> I have read about Joe McCarthy for forty years.  The left misunderstands him because there were truly commies among their ranks.  The fauxright refuses to understand him because he is one of theirs.  The fact is this: he castigated true Americans like Eisenhower and Marshall.  Screw him.  He is where he belongs: in historical purgatory, and Evans and the others will not rehabilitate in mainstream America's collective mind in even the next fifty years.



Progressives are still making the painful transition to a world where they no longer control the media.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> Joe McCarthy ... castigated ... Eisenhower.... Screw him.



Hubert Humphrey castigated Ike; Walter Lippmann castigated Ike; Adlai Stevenson certainly castigated Ike. Do you want to "screw them," too?

Moreover: When did McCarthy castigate Ike? Could you provide a quote and source?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mark, you don't stand any more chance of carrying the field than did PC.

(1) Lippman and Stevenson called Ike soft on communism?  What McCarthy did when he attacked people like Bohlen, a great friend of Eisenhower, was to castigate Eisenhower's choice.

(2) You are equating the rough and tumble of politics as equal to smearing two great men's characters?  All will notice also that, yes, you ignored the remarks by your hero against Marshall.   

(3) Justification of the victimizer rather than the victim shows your bias.  In the eyes of God only, are all sins equal.  JM's were far greater than those of Ike or AS or GM.  

McCarthy used a good cause for unrighteous, personal aggrandizement.  In that, he reminds informed readers of Huey Long and Aaron Burr and other Americans who over reached.

I expected better from you.

"Ike, Milton, and the McCarthy Battle". Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission.  http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/Ike-Milton-McCarthy.htm

Parmet, Herbert S. (1998). Eisenhower and the American Crusades. Transaction Publishers. pp. 248, 337, 577. ISBN 0-7658-0437-9.  EMC - Eisenhower Stories - Ike, Milton, and the McCarthy Battle

Caute, David (1978). The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge Under Truman and Eisenhower. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671226827


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> (1) Lippman and Stevenson called Ike soft on communism?



Did McCarthy call Ike soft on Communism?  If so, when? Please provide the quote and source.



JakeStarkey said:


> What McCarthy did when he attacked people like Bohlen, a great of Eisenhower, was to castigate Eisenhower's choice.



Are you arguing that senators should not fulfill their constitutional duty of advice and consent, but should just rubber-stamp whomever the President appoints to any position? McCarthy was only one of 13 senators who opposed Bohlen's confirmation. Were they all wicked, or just McCarthy?

To say that McCarthy "attacked" Bohlen is a bit of a stretch. Many others were much harder on Bohlen than McCarthy. McCarthy asked Bohlen if he had second thoughts about his judgment at Yalta; Bohlen said no. McCarthy said Bohlen exercised questionable judgment at Yalta, and Bohlen's inability to see that suggested that his judgment was still too questionable for such a sensitive position as ambassador to the USSR.

Although McCarthy had Bohlen's file, and thus knew that he had been arrested for soliciting sex from another man in a public place, he never mentioned it. Many others made snide insinuations about Bohlen's closeted sexual orientation, suggesting that in Moscow he might be at risk of being blackmailed; others tried to explain Bohlen's behavior by suggesting that he might already have been blackmailed, or might just be a Soviet sympathizer or fellow traveler. McCarthy steered clear of all such talk.

What does "a great of Eisenhower" mean? [I see that after I posted this question you edited your post to read "a great _friend_ of Eisenhower," which makes more sense. Are you now arguing that senators should never vote against confirmation of any appointee who is a friend of the President?]

I notice that you seem to have retreated from your original, startling claim that that McCarthy accused Ike of being "soft on Communism" to the much weaker claim that he "castigated" Ike, then to the still weaker claim that he castigated _Ike's choice_ of Bohlen as ambassador to Moscow. You still have not provided a quote or source; should I take this as an admission that you cannot support your earlier charges?



JakeStarkey said:


> (2) You are equating the rough and tumble of politics as equal to smearing two great men's characters?



Are you suggesting a double standard, under which something done by McCarthy is "smearing," but the exact same thing done by anybody else is "the rough and tumble of politics?"

How did McCarthy "smear" Ike's character?



JakeStarkey said:


> All will notice also that, yes, you ignored the remarks by your hero against Marshall.



Just for the record, McCarthy is not my hero. But neither was the the ogre he was depicted as in the fairy-tale version of history I was taught in college. In place of that simplistic fable, Evans has given us a nuanced and realistic understanding. The black-and-white melodrama of McCarthy-as-cartoon-villain versus his opponents-as-mythical-heroes must give way, as all such childish fancies must do, to a more realistic picture, filled with shades of gray on all sides. I agree with Evans that McCarthy was a "flawed" character, but I am no longer so certain as I once was that his antagonists were less so. I am interested in learning the facts of what McCarthy did and said, both the good and bad. That's why I ask for quotes and sources.

Not only did I not "ignore" McCarthy's attack on Marshall, I explicitly wrote that Evans:



Mark LaRochelle said:


> not only explains in _Blacklisted by History_ that McCarthy and Davis were wrong about Marshall, but shows why.



I even provided the source (pp. 413-414), so that you could learn for yourself the _facts_ about _why_ McCarthy was wrong about Marshall, so you wouldn't have to be so dependent on argument by strenuous assertion and the _ad hominem_ fallacy.



JakeStarkey said:


> (3) Justification of the victimizer rather than the victim shows your bias.  In the eyes of God only, are all sins equal.  JM's were far greater than those of Ike or AS or GM.



You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. As Evans shows, McCarthy certainly made his share of mistakes. Nevertheless, as a result of reading _Blacklisted by History_, I found myself no longer able to defend my belief that McCarthy lied about his cases. Moreover, the evidence presented in the book made it impossible for me to evade acknowledging that those who conspired against McCarthy actually _did_ lie about these cases, willfully and repeatedly.

As to whose sins are graver, I leave such judgments to you and God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your conclusions are inconclusive to me.  JM, in my opinion, did far more harm than good, I think he deserved being pulled down by his own party, and I can leave it at that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

&#8220;If there were five million feet of film on St. Francis of Assisi, you could probably find a shot of him running away naked from his father&#8217;s house (he did), and Ed Murrow could prove he was an exhibitionist and a poseur (he affected to talk to the birds!).&#8221; -- William F Buckley on how the Liberal Media went after Joe McCarthy


----------



## JakeStarkey

I truly liked Buckley, but he is wrong on this.  Frank, provide the link for this, please, so we can make sure you are not lying again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> I truly liked Buckley, but he is wrong on this.  Frank, provide the link for this, please, so we can make sure you are not lying again.



William F. Buckley Jr. on Edward R. Murrow, Sen. Joe McCarthy, and Good Night, and Good Luck on National Review Online

" He made the point that there wasnt anybody in the world you couldnt demolish by doing to him what Murrow did to McCarthy. If there were five million feet of film on St. Francis of Assisi, you could probably find a shot of him running away naked from his fathers house (he did), and Ed Murrow could prove he was an exhibitionist and a poseur (he affected to talk to the birds!)."

That help any, Jakey?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly liked Buckley, but he is wrong on this.  Frank, provide the link for this, please, so we can make sure you are not lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William F. Buckley Jr. on Edward R. Murrow, Sen. Joe McCarthy, and Good Night, and Good Luck on National Review Online
> 
> " He made the point that there wasn&#8217;t anybody in the world you couldn&#8217;t demolish by doing to him what Murrow did to McCarthy. If there were five million feet of film on St. Francis of Assisi, you could probably find a shot of him running away naked from his father&#8217;s house (he did), and Ed Murrow could prove he was an exhibitionist and a poseur (he affected to talk to the birds!)."
> 
> That help any, Jakey?
Click to expand...


It does. Thanks for the cite.  "If that happens, I&#8217;ll probably say what is correct, namely that my own study of McCarthy ended with his activity in September 1953, that his fight with the Army, which was what the fracas was about in 1954 &#8212; which got him censured, and which loosed Edward R. Murrow &#8212; *was something else, that McCarthy had thrown restraint to one side, that he was deep in booze in those days and did some flatly inexcusable things, for instance his attack on General Ralph Zwicker. *"

"But, if pressed, I&#8217;d have recalled that the current movie makes a heroine out of Annie Lee Moss, the black code clerk allegedly mistaken by McCarthy for another Annie Lee Moss, who was indeed a member of the Communist Party. Never mind, what mattered in the current production was melodrama, and orderly thought bars chiasmic effects: *McCarthy smeared the opposition/The opposition smeared McCarthy."*

Does that help focus Buckley better of Joe McCarthy, Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Since McCarthy is being sited again by Progressives its time to revisit how correct he was in his warning that key people at State and the White House were Communist spies


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly liked Buckley, but he is wrong on this.  Frank, provide the link for this, please, so we can make sure you are not lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William F. Buckley Jr. on Edward R. Murrow, Sen. Joe McCarthy, and Good Night, and Good Luck on National Review Online
> 
> " He made the point that there wasnt anybody in the world you couldnt demolish by doing to him what Murrow did to McCarthy. If there were five million feet of film on St. Francis of Assisi, you could probably find a shot of him running away naked from his fathers house (he did), and Ed Murrow could prove he was an exhibitionist and a poseur (he affected to talk to the birds!)."
> 
> That help any, Jakey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does. Thanks for the cite.  "If that happens, Ill probably say what is correct, namely that my own study of McCarthy ended with his activity in September 1953, that his fight with the Army, which was what the fracas was about in 1954  which got him censured, and which loosed Edward R. Murrow  *was something else, that McCarthy had thrown restraint to one side, that he was deep in booze in those days and did some flatly inexcusable things, for instance his attack on General Ralph Zwicker. *"
> 
> "But, if pressed, Id have recalled that the current movie makes a heroine out of Annie Lee Moss, the black code clerk allegedly mistaken by McCarthy for another Annie Lee Moss, who was indeed a member of the Communist Party. Never mind, what mattered in the current production was melodrama, and orderly thought bars chiasmic effects: *McCarthy smeared the opposition/The opposition smeared McCarthy."*
> 
> Does that help focus Buckley better of Joe McCarthy, Frank?
Click to expand...


"McCarthyism... is a movement around which men of good will and stern morality can close ranks." -- William F Buckley.

Fail again Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey

You guys still have not demonstrated that Bill despised Joe, which he certainly did.

Nice try, though.  Carry on.


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Since McCarthy is being *sited* again by Progressives its time to revisit how correct he was in his warning that key people at State and the White House were Communist spies



Are they moving his grave?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since McCarthy is being *sited* again by Progressives its time to revisit how correct he was in his warning that key people at State and the White House were Communist spies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they moving his grave?
Click to expand...


Didn't they have to pour concrete over it to preserve it from patriots tearing it up?


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> "my own study of McCarthy ended with his activity in September 1953 [...] his fight with the Army, which was what the fracas was about in 1954  which got him censured[/I][/B]"



Since Buckley admitted that his study of McCarthy ended in 1953, it's understandable that he was somewhat fuzzy on the events of '54. What got McCarthy censured was not the Army's charges, which were found by the Mundt panel to be baseless, but his refusal to cooperate with the Gillette committee, a completely separate matter.



JakeStarkey said:


> "the current movie makes a heroine out of Annie Lee Moss, the black code clerk allegedly mistaken by McCarthy for another Annie Lee Moss, who was indeed a member of the Communist Party."[/I][/B]



It should perhaps be noted that this mistaken-identity thesis, floated by Senate Democrats, trumpeted by Murrow, and regurgitated by Clooney, was phony from the get-go. As the Subversive Activities Control Board revealed in 1958 (once McCarthy was safely dead), the Pentagon code clerk Annie Lee Moss was indeed a member of the Communist Party of Washington, DC, just as FBI undercover operative Mary Markward had testified before the McCarthy subcommittee. But Senate Democrats were perfectly aware of this while they were playing the mistaken-identity gambit, as the FBI had shared a copy of the party's membership roster with Sen Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA). See _Blacklisted by History_, p. 534, for a photographic reproduction of the FBI report.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since McCarthy is being *sited* again by Progressives its time to revisit how correct he was in his warning that key people at State and the White House were Communist spies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they moving his grave?
Click to expand...


I guess if I was wrong about everything and had no substance to counter an argument, yeah, I'd highlight that it should be cited, well done. Very illuminating


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mark LaRochelle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "my own study of McCarthy ended with his activity in September 1953 [...] his fight with the Army, which was what the fracas was about in 1954  which got him censured[/I][/B]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Buckley admitted that his study of McCarthy ended in 1953, it's understandable that he was somewhat fuzzy on the events of '54. What got McCarthy censured was not the Army's charges, which were found by the Mundt panel to be baseless, but his refusal to cooperate with the Gillette committee, a completely separate matter.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the current movie makes a heroine out of Annie Lee Moss, the black code clerk allegedly mistaken by McCarthy for another Annie Lee Moss, who was indeed a member of the Communist Party."[/I][/B]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should perhaps be noted that this mistaken-identity thesis, floated by Senate Democrats, trumpeted by Murrow, and regurgitated by Clooney, was phony from the get-go. As the Subversive Activities Control Board revealed in 1958 (once McCarthy was safely dead), the Pentagon code clerk Annie Lee Moss was indeed a member of the Communist Party of Washington, DC, just as FBI undercover operative Mary Markward had testified before the McCarthy subcommittee. But Senate Democrats were perfectly aware of this while they were playing the mistaken-identity gambit, as the FBI had shared a copy of the party's membership roster with Sen Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA). See _Blacklisted by History_, p. 534, for a photographic reproduction of the FBI report.
Click to expand...


Buckley was not confused on the events of 1954, and you are misrepresenting them.

The FBI made a report, but no objective confirmation of this thesis of "knowingly" mistaken democrats can be connected to the Senate democrats.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> Buckley was not confused on the events of 1954, and you are misrepresenting them.



You quoted Buckley as saying that that McCarthy's



JakeStarkey said:


> fight with the Army [...] got him censured



In fact, according to _Blacklisted by History_, "the Zwicker charge was dropped, leaving only the count about the Gillette committee as the basis for McCarthy's censure." (p. 593)

If you allege that what I have written is at variance with the facts, please give the specific facts, and your source. "Misrepresentation" carries a connotation of intention to deceive. What is your evidence of my intention? If you disagree, how can you discard the possibility of honest error? 



JakeStarkey said:


> The FBI made a report, but no objective confirmation of this thesis of "knowingly" mistaken democrats can be connected to the Senate democrats.



The FBI report photographically reproduced on p. 534 of _Blacklisted by History_ is dated February 24, 1956, two weeks before Senate Democrats accused McCarthy of a case of mistaken identity with regard to Moss. This report details the FBI briefing of Sen. Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, junior member of the minority on the McCarthy subcommittee, on the Moss case. According to the agent's report:



> "I then told the Senator that in addition to the Mary Markward testimony, we had secured through confidential sources access to an examination of membership records of the Communist Party of the District of Columbia in May of 1944, that these reflected the name of Annie Lee Moss of 72 R Street."



The report adds:



> "Senator Jackson stated that this certainly was enough for him and that there could be no doubt about Annie Lee Moss's Communist Party affiliations."



Yet on March 11, 1954, when Moss testified, Jackson joined Sen. Stuart Symington (D-MO) in putting forward the mistaken-identity thesis:



> SYMINGTON: Do you know anybody else in this town named Moss? Have you ever looked up a telephone number -- are there any Mosses in Washington besides you?
> MOSS: Yes, sir, there are three Annie Lee Mosses.
> JACKSON: Will you state that again?
> MOSS: There were three Annie Lee Mosses.



(As Evans notes on p. 539, this is false: There was only one Annie Lee Moss listed in the Washington phone directory -- the witness.)

Then, Moss was asked about when and where she had subscribed to the Communist Party's official organ, _The Daily Worker_. According to the hearing transcripts, Moss testified that she didn't receive the paper after she moved to "72 R St."

Throughout all this, and up until the Subversive Activities Control Board publicly revealed the truth in 1958, Jackson and the rest of the Senate Democrats went along with the mistaken-identity thesis.

That Jackson knew better is indisputable. That he had withheld his FBI briefing from Symington and McClellan (senior Democrat on the McCarthy subcommittee) seems incredible, but would be even more incriminating of him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is no proof of anything.  No "proof" exists of Jackson knowing better.  Nothing, period.

So let's try again.

Show us where the Senate "democrats" had been notified of the report.  Show us where Jackson "knew better."

You are lacking big time.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> Show us where the Senate "democrats" had been notified of the report.



Jackson was the junior Democrat on the McCarthy subcommittee. He was delegated by the minority to be briefed by the FBI on behalf of subcommittee Democrats. Either he shared this information with McClellan and Symington, or he withheld it. Neither option makes Jackson look very good. But for anyone familiar with the Senate, your implication that Jackson withheld this information from fellow Democrats on the subcommittee strains credibility. Yet if true, it makes Jackson look even worse.



JakeStarkey said:


> Show us where Jackson "knew better."



Jackson was informed by the FBI that the Communist Party of Washington, DC had listed Annie Lee Moss not just as a member, and subscriber to the _Daily Worker_, but as a Group Captain for registration. He was also informed that her address was "72 R Street," the same address Moss later testified was her own.

Jackson himself declared the information he obtained from the FBI to be convincing. Later, when Moss slipped up and confirmed the address the FBI had given Jackson, there could be no doubt.

It was on the basis of the exact same FBI evidence Jackson had -- and no other -- that the Subversive Activities Control Board found publicly in 1958 that Annie Lee Moss was a Communist Party member.

If you are still able to find reasonable doubt, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Historians who have examined recently available evidence, however, have generally come to the opposite opinion. See, for example, Arthur Herman, _Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator_, or Andrea Freeman, _The Strange Career of Annie Lee Moss: Rethinking Race, Gender, and McCarthyism_.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> That is no proof of anything.  No "proof" exists of Jackson knowing better.  Nothing, period.
> 
> So let's try again.
> 
> Show us where the Senate "democrats" had been notified of the report.  Show us where Jackson "knew better."
> 
> You are lacking big time.



You might want to at least have some clue before you challenge an expert. Then again, I'm enjoying this as a spectator


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mark LaRochelle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where the Senate "democrats" had been notified of the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson was the junior Democrat on the McCarthy subcommittee. He was delegated by the minority to be briefed by the FBI on behalf of subcommittee Democrats. Either he shared this information with McClellan and Symington, or he withheld it. Neither option makes Jackson look very good. But for anyone familiar with the Senate, your implication that Jackson withheld this information from fellow Democrats on the subcommittee strains credibility. Yet if true, it makes Jackson look even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where Jackson "knew better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jackson was informed by the FBI that the Communist Party of Washington, DC had listed Annie Lee Moss not just as a member, and subscriber to the _Daily Worker_, but as a Group Captain for registration. He was also informed that her address was "72 R Street," the same address Moss later testified was her own.
> 
> Jackson himself declared the information he obtained from the FBI to be convincing. Later, when Moss slipped up and confirmed the address the FBI had given Jackson, there could be no doubt.
> 
> It was on the basis of the exact same FBI evidence Jackson had -- and no other -- that the Subversive Activities Control Board found publicly in 1958 that Annie Lee Moss was a Communist Party member.
> 
> If you are still able to find reasonable doubt, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Historians who have examined recently available evidence, however, have generally come to the opposite opinion. See, for example, Arthur Herman, _Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator_, or Andrea Freeman, _The Strange Career of Annie Lee Moss: Rethinking Race, Gender, and McCarthyism_.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Mark, for explaining clearly.  I am still not convinced of your overall attempt at rehabilitating JM but this makes one think more about what the Dems were up to.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you, Mark, for explaining clearly.  I am still not convinced of your overall attempt at rehabilitating JM but this makes one think more about what the Dems were up to.



You're very welcome, Jake, and thanks for your gracious comment. I'm actually not interested in rehabilitating McCarthy (I agree with Evans that he was a "flawed" character, but those who opposed him were also not without flaws). I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinion about McCarthy; I'm only interested in getting the underlying facts straight. To that end, I'm interested in learning all I can.

I'm still learning.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

As an afterthought, I should mention that I didn't mean to diss Buckley. He and Brent Bozell worked as volunteer McCarthy staffers, and wrote a defense of McCarthy, _McCarthy and His Enemies_ (1954), which was pretty good, considering that they had no access to the most important evidence Evans uses, which was then classified.

Incidentally, Buckley had Evans proofread his last book, _The Redhunter_, a novel about McCarthy, and his sister Tish Bozell said that when he died, the book on Buckley's bedside table was _Blacklisted by History_.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Leftists are scared to death of THE TRUTH, because the "truth" is always supported by FACTS.

Leftists much prefer rumors, lies, fabrications, and whatever other "tool(s)" they need to use to stir up EMOTIONAL responses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

McCarthy fist came on the scene a few months after the Soviets tried starting WWIII by blockading Berlin and a few months before the ChiComs stared killing American soldiers in Korea -- yet McCarthy is blamed for stirring up a "Red Scare".

The last few years I've completely revised much of what I was taught, especially the greatness of FDR and the supposed red baiting of Joe McCarthy. Books like "Blacklisted" should be required reading, it is meticulously researched, well written and completely obliterates the McCarthy narrative as set forth by the Progressive controlled media and educational system.


----------



## HUGGY

What Frankie??  you think you will get your ass kicked less if you wait every six months to dredge up this two year old thread?

McCarthy was a piece of shit. History was not wrong.


----------



## Katzndogz

CrusaderFrank said:


> McCarthy fist came on the scene a few months after the Soviets tried starting WWIII by blockading Berlin and a few months before the ChiComs stared killing American soldiers in Korea -- yet McCarthy is blamed for stirring up a "Red Scare".
> 
> The last few years I've completely revised much of what I was taught, especially the greatness of FDR and the supposed red baiting of Joe McCarthy. Books like "Blacklisted" should be required reading, it is meticulously researched, well written and completely obliterates the McCarthy narrative as set forth by the Progressive controlled media and educational system.



Joe McCarthy was right all along.  He was right about everything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

HUGGY said:


> What Frankie??  you think you will get your ass kicked less if you wait every six months to dredge up this two year old thread?
> 
> McCarthy was a piece of shit. History was not wrong.



Coming form the guy who keeps bumping his "the List" with music videos -- that's hysterical! Moreover, find a grown up to read you the first 22 pages of the book, then we'll talk some more about McCarthy.

Did you know when the Berlin Airllift, McCarthy's first speech and the Korean War occurred?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Berlin Airlift (1948), Korea (June, 1950), McCarthy's first speech does not matter.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I'm reading this now and WOW. Have the democrats been cooked. The info in here and in Venona just,...wow.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This is a must read if you care. My mind is just blown on certain areas. This author is a hero.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Thanks, Frank C.WOW.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

TakeAStepBack said:


> Thanks, Frank C.WOW.



Mark Rochelle, the lead researcher for the book has posted in this thread.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Berlin Airlift (1948), Korea (June, 1950), McCarthy's first speech does not matter.



Feb 9, 1950.

After the Soviets tried to start WWIII by blockading Berlin (proving Patton correct), and 4 months before the ChiComs started killing US GI's in Korea.

Yet, McCarthy is blamed for igniting the "Red Scare"


"Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia" (1950)
1
Joseph McCarthy

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity..."

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/mccarthy_wheeling.pdf


That is why Progressives have demonized McCarthy with lies and slander


----------



## Peach

CrusaderFrank said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.
Click to expand...

Look in the FICTION section. McCarthy died a drunken wreck, as he was when he ruined lives, drove some to suicide with his false claims and wasted millions in taxpayer money. He was looking for the demon inside himself. No commies found, some of Russian origin destroyed. A sad chapter in US history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peach said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the FICTION section. McCarthy died a drunken wreck, as he was when he ruined lives, drove some to suicide with his false claims and wasted millions in taxpayer money. He was looking for the demon inside himself. No commies found, some of Russian origin destroyed. A sad chapter in US history.
Click to expand...


History is unkind to your distorted version of reality.

McCarthy correctly identified numerous Communists through the government especially at State and the in White House.

Frankly, to chime in as you did, without bothers to read a single post or a page in the book, makes you look more like an idiot than I dared hope.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Berlin Airlift (1948), Korea (June, 1950), McCarthy's first speech does not matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feb 9, 1950.
> 
> After the Soviets tried to start WWIII by blockading Berlin (proving Patton correct), and 4 months before the ChiComs started killing US GI's in Korea.
> 
> Yet, McCarthy is blamed for igniting the "Red Scare"
> 
> 
> "Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia" (1950)
> 1
> Joseph McCarthy
> 
> "Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity..."
> 
> http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/mccarthy_wheeling.pdf
> 
> 
> That is why Progressives have demonized McCarthy with lies and slander
Click to expand...


Berlin Blockade began in 1948, Frank.

Korean War began in June 1950, Frank.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Berlin Airlift (1948), Korea (June, 1950), McCarthy's first speech does not matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feb 9, 1950.
> 
> After the Soviets tried to start WWIII by blockading Berlin (proving Patton correct), and 4 months before the ChiComs started killing US GI's in Korea.
> 
> Yet, McCarthy is blamed for igniting the "Red Scare"
> 
> 
> "Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia" (1950)
> 1
> Joseph McCarthy
> 
> "Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity..."
> 
> http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/mccarthy_wheeling.pdf
> 
> 
> That is why Progressives have demonized McCarthy with lies and slander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Berlin Blockade began in 1948, Frank.
> 
> Korean War began in June 1950, Frank.
Click to expand...


Right.

Berlin blockade 49-49, McCarthy Wheeling Speech Feb 50, FDR's buddies the ChiComs ignite Korean War June 1950

See?

See how McCarthy invented the Red Scare all by himself?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Check your dating more closely, Frank.  And the chicoms came in Nov 50.  They were trying to hold the NK dictator back from invading SK.  See how this all work.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Check your dating more closely, Frank.  And the chicoms came in Nov 50.  They were trying to hold the NK dictator back from invading SK.  See how this all work.



Jake, are you saying China had no involvement with NoKo prior to Nov 1950?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Jake, don't post here again until you can demonstrate you have at least a grade school level of understanding of the Korean War.

Here, this is from Wiki:

"In April 1950 Kim Il-sung travelled to Moscow and secured Stalin's support for a policy to unify Korea under his authority. Although agreeing with the invasion of South Korea in principle, Stalin refused to become directly involved in Kim's plans, and advised Kim to enlist Chinese support instead. In May 1950 Kim visited Beijing, and succeeded in gaining Mao's endorsement."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Red China and the USSR had helped to create NK's military and infrastructure.  It was the crazy Korean, against Stalin and Mao's wishes, who launched across the border in June 1950.

You truly don't know the history, evidenced by your comments.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Red China and the USSR had helped to create NK's military and infrastructure.  It was the crazy Korean, against Stalin and Mao's wishes, who launched across the border in June 1950.
> 
> You truly don't know the history, evidenced by your comments.



Jake, you're embarrassing yourself, again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Jake, if all you can read and retain is 2 sentences from Wiki I suggest you try these:

"In April 1950 Kim Il-sung travelled to Moscow and secured Stalin's support for a policy to unify Korea under his authority. Although agreeing with the invasion of South Korea in principle, Stalin refused to become directly involved in Kim's plans, and advised Kim to enlist Chinese support instead. *In May 1950 Kim visited Beijing, and succeeded in gaining Mao's endorsement.*"

I bolded the key sentence for you


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Stalin urged Kim not to attack South Korea at that time.  No, Mao did not approve of an immediate attack on South Korea.  However, once the attack went in, the dictators had no chance.  Check your footnotes, then check the documents.  Your suppositions aren't support.  The big guys were not for an immediate invasion.

You would not pass a freshman history class much less a graduate course on this issue.  You are putting your wack ideology before the narrative and the facts.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

It's not quite true that Stalin and Mao pushed Kim into attacking South Korea, nor is it quite true that they opposed the attack. The documentary evidence is ambiguous. The 13 May 1950 telegram from Soviet Ambassador "Roshchin" in Peking (who was actually GRU agent Feliks Razumovskii) to Stalin states that the North Koreans informed Mao of Stalin's directive that "North Korea can move toward actions," but that the issue should be discussed personally with Mao.

About five weeks later, on 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked.

The definitive work on this period is Chang and Halliday's _Mao: The Unknown Story_, particularly Chapter 34, &#8220;Why Mao and Stalin Started the Korean War.&#8221;


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mark LaRochelle said:


> It's not quite true that Stalin and Mao pushed Kim into attacking South Korea, not is it quite true that they opposed the attack. The documentary evidence is ambiguous. The 13 May 1950 telegram from Soviet Ambassador "Roshchin" in Peking (who was actually GRU agent Feliks Razumovskii) to Stalin states that the North Koreans informed Mao of Stalin's directive that "North Korea can move toward actions," but that the issue should be discussed personally with Mao.
> 
> About five weeks later, on 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked.
> 
> The definitive work on this period is Chang and Halliday's _Mao: The Unknown Story_, particularly Chapter 34, Why Mao and Stalin Started the Korean War.



Mark, tell us about the stupid Truman administration decision in 1949 to exclude the South Korean peninsula from the sphere of American strategic interests.  I would think that would certainly gear Stalin and Mao up for future action when the conditions were right.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

On 12 January 1950, Acheson gave a speech before the National Press Club, in which he proclaimed that &#8220;a new day &#8230; has dawned in Asia.&#8221; This was three months after China had fallen to Communist insurgents armed by Moscow.

The U.S. &#8220;defensive perimeter,&#8221; announced Acheson, had now shrunk to include only Alaska&#8217;s Aleutian Islands, Japan (including Japan&#8217;s Ryukyu Islands, which extend from within 50 miles of South Korea to 67 miles of Taiwan), and the Philippines. Regarding South Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia, he said, &#8220;no person can guarantee these areas against military attack.&#8221; Disingenuously, he added, &#8220;one hesitates to say where such an armed attack could come from.&#8221; Acheson lumped all the rest of Asia together with Communist China as &#8220;the Asian peoples,&#8221; whom he said were &#8220;on their own.&#8221; He said all previous east-west relations (which he characterized as &#8220;paternalism&#8221; or &#8220;exploitation&#8221 were over. Then he added some very confusing language, saying of &#8220;the Asian peoples,&#8221; that &#8220;We are their friends. Others are their friends.&#8221; As to whether Acheson meant to include the Soviet Union among &#8220;the Asian peoples,&#8221; or among the &#8220;others&#8221; who were their "friends,&#8221; he was perhaps intentionally ambiguous.

The policy Acheson put forward in this speech had been formulated at a State Department meeting in October 1949 [corrected date], immediately following the fall of China. (For more detail, see Evans&#8217; _Blacklisted by History_, particularly chapter 31, &#8220;A Conspiracy So Immense.&#8221 The meeting was convened by Ambassador at Large Philip Jessup, director of the Research Committee of the Institute of Pacific Relations, which would be identified in a report of the Democrat-controlled McCarran subcommittee as "a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives."

Aside from being Acheson's top adviser on the Far East, Jessup was a long-time intimate collaborator with Frederick Vanderbilt Field, who had publicly identified himself as a &#8220;Communist&#8221; in the CPUSA&#8217;s official organ, _Political Affairs_, in January 1949. Field had also been identified in 1938 by Whittaker Chambers (and would later be independently identified by Elizabeth Bentley and Louis Budenz) as a member of the Communist underground, affiliated with the GRU _apparat_.

For more on this, see Edward M. Collins, _Myth, Manifesto, Meltdown: Communist Strategy, 1848&#8211;1991_; Lauren Kessler, _Clever Girl: Elizabeth Bentley, the Spy Who Ushered in the McCarthy Era_; or especially _Blacklisted by History_, chapter 30, &#8220;Dr. Jessup and Mr. Field.&#8221;


----------



## JakeStarkey

October 1950?  Do you mean October 1949?  Who identifies Jessup as Acheson's chief adviser?  Acheson?  The Democratic subcommittee identifies the Committee of the Institute of Pacific Relations "as 'a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.'"?  Not the Republicans?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peach said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the FICTION section. McCarthy died a drunken wreck, as he was when he ruined lives, drove some to suicide with his false claims and wasted millions in taxpayer money. He was looking for the demon inside himself. No commies found, some of Russian origin destroyed. A sad chapter in US history.
Click to expand...


Wow.  So glad that you were able to come along, utterly freaking ignore all the other posts in the thread, and blankly and vaguely restate the premise that the posts you didn't read debunked as though you were coming up with something brilliant, incisive, and original.

Women like you are the reason why it took the rest of us until 1920 to get the vote.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CeCelie1200 is one of the female dooshes here, and simply best ignore her drunken rants.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peach said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the FICTION section. McCarthy died a drunken wreck, as he was when he ruined lives, drove some to suicide with his false claims and wasted millions in taxpayer money. He was looking for the demon inside himself. No commies found, some of Russian origin destroyed. A sad chapter in US history.
Click to expand...


Alger Hiss, and Owen Lattimore are far far sadder chapters.

FDR's support of Stalin and Mao, at the encouragement of genuine Communist spies that McCarthy tried to warn us about, lead to the biggest mass murders in human history and is that saddest chapter of all

Find a grown up to read you the first 5 pages of "Blacklisted"


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are an absolutely ludicrous example of far right wackery, CrusaderFrank.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

JakeStarkey said:


> October 1950?  Do you mean October 1949?



Yes, of course, October 1949, immediately following the fall of China. Thanks for the catch.



JakeStarkey said:


> Who identifies Jessup as Acheson's chief adviser?  Acheson?



Most sources identify Jessup as Acheson's top adviser, particularly on the Far East. I'm not aware of any source that disputes this identification, nor of any other candidate for the title who even comes close.

Beisner says that among his advisers "Acheson was especially close to Philip Jessup, one of his 'closest friends.'" Leffler says "So high was Acheson's regard for Jessup that he wanted Jessup treated as if he were on a level comparable to the secretary of state himself." The AP repeatedly identified Jessup in this way: 15 December 1949: "Jessup, a top administration adviser on Far Eastern policy"; 28 March 1950: "The new line-up, announced yesterday, placed Ambassador Philip C. Jessup in the post of principal adviser to Acheson on world political issues." When, in response to McCarthy's charges, Truman brought Dulles into the State Department in an effort to restore bipartisanship to foreign policy, an AP story of April 6, 1950, titled "Dulles Appointed as Top Ranking Acheson Adviser," reported that Dulles would "rank along with Philip Jessup." Yet another AP story of October 3, 1951 identifies Jessup as "a top adviser to Secretary of State Acheson." Perhaps Jessup's role is best illustrated by the fact that Acheson tasked him with the meeting of October 1949, including inviting speakers.



JakeStarkey said:


> The Democratic subcommittee identifies the Committee of the Institute of Pacific Relations "as 'a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.'"?  Not the Republicans?



The Senate at the time was majority Democrat, thus the subcommittee on internal security was majority Democrat, and the chairman was McCarran, a Democrat. The point is that the identification of the IPR (of which Jessup was chairman of the US section) as a Communist tool was not a matter of partisan politics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks, Mark.  The final inference is that the Dems, like the Pubs, were concerned about communists in government?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> You are an absolutely ludicrous example of far right wackery, CrusaderFrank.



Thank you, Jake. Wrong as usual


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says the indvidual who is an absolutely ludicrous example of far right whackery.  Thanks, Frank.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The central thesis of the book you did not read, Jake, was that Joe McCarthy was accurate and maybe even understated in trying to caution us that the Communists had genuine spies placed throughout the FDR (D) Administration, even in the White House. Further, many Democrat Senators covered for them.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Like the GOP, the Democrats were split. Just as some Republicans, such as Ralph Flanders (R-VT), stuck their heads in the sand regarding Communist infiltration, some Democrats, such as McCarran (D-NV), tried to root out the problem.

The Democrats were split into the Progressives and the Dixiecrats. While the Progressives, such as Samuel Dickstein (D-NY) -- who was himself a Soviet agent -- were not too concerned about the issue, the Dixiecrats, such as John Wood (D-GA), hated the Communists almost as much as they hated the GOP, and for the same reason: because both opposed segregation.

"Centrist" Democrats could go either way. For example, Truman, observes Evans, was a "visceral anti-Communist," but was naive about the way the Communists operated, too stubborn to learn, and more concerned about getting re-elected than cleaning up the problem. McCarran was allowed to tear the lid off the cover-up, but only after Eisenhower could share the blame. Ike was likewise an anti-Communist who supported McCarthy as long as he was damaging the Democrats, but turned on him when McCarthy refused to stop investigating just because the GOP was in power.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.

That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.

Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?

This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.
> 
> That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.
> 
> Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?
> 
> This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.



You still didn't read the book.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.
> 
> That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.
> 
> Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?
> 
> This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.



What other unread books do you want to chime in on, "Game of Thrones"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have read parts of the book that interest me and have queried Mark on material I have not accepted.

That you have read the book means nothing, because you will lie at the drop of the hat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.
> 
> That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.
> 
> Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?
> 
> This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.



Blacklisted completely vindicates McCarthy's Central and understated theme: genuine Communist spies and sympathizer had positions of authority at the FDR White House and US State and were able to bend US foreign policy to their ends. 

As a direct result, the USA supported, aided and abetted history's 2 biggest mass murderers: Progressive Chairman Mao and "Uncle" Joe Stalin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one has ever said there weren't commie spies in the government.  That is nothing new or exciting.

What is not true is that the Democratic Party was a front for communism.

We supported Stalin and Mao against fascists and militarists.

This is my point about you: you let your ideology, just like a communist or a fascist, trump the facts and the narrative.

In that, you are every bit as subjective as a Catholic interrogator of the Inquisition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, it does not.  In no way shape or form is your narrative conforming to he narrative.

Your conclusion is laughable, and if you tried it in a graduate history course you would get dropped metaphorically on your head.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> No, it does not.  In no way shape or form is your narrative conforming to he narrative.
> 
> Your conclusion is laughable, and if you tried it in a graduate history course you would get dropped metaphorically on your head.



I've listened to Progressives lie to me about history for a real long time. 

You lied about McCarthy's "Red Scare", about FDR's unquestioned "greatness" and now even today, you lie that an ordinary tax write off is an "oil subsidy" and I won't have it any more.

McCarthy tried to warn us that FDR's White House and State Department were a nest of spies and he was treated like a lunatic, traitor and a fool and the lie that McCarthy was wrong was passed on unquestioned for generations. Were it harmless, it might not matter. But now we've all seen what happens when Communists have their way. Eastern Europe unnecessarily labored under the yolk of Communism until Reagan freed them. How sad. How unnecessary.

Shek and the Free China he started was a beacon of freedom and prosperity while Mao, the person that FDR chose to back, lead a nation to destitution and mass graves. Shek gave us Taiwan; Mao gave us mass graves, slavery and destitution. It's as clear as day, even a fool can see it.

You've been show countless times how wrong and evil and inhuman these Communists were and are, the mass graves number in the tens maybe hundreds of millions -- and you bleat on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nicky continues to melt down; hey, that's his right.

Shek was a dictator in a dictatorship, only marginally better than the commies under Mao.

The commies were awful and evil, yes, and so were the nazis, and so have been the neo-cons who took us to war in Iraq.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Nicky continues to melt down; hey, that's his right.
> 
> Shek was a dictator in a dictatorship, only marginally better than the commies under Mao.
> 
> The commies were awful and evil, yes, and so were the nazis, and so have been the neo-cons who took us to war in Iraq.



Jake, you're insane


----------



## JakeStarkey

Frank, you tell lies and you cry when called out.

Frank is a doosh.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Frank, you tell lies and you cry when called out.
> 
> Frank is a doosh.



Coming from the poster boy for "How to Fake being a Republican" that means a lot to me.

Not really.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Frank, your dooshiness is not an excuse.  It is what you are.  You live by your lie.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

CrusaderFrank said:


> Shek and the Free China he started was a beacon of freedom and prosperity while Mao, the person that FDR chose to back, lead a nation to destitution and mass graves.



Actually, FDR backed Chiang, not Mao. It was the Soviet agents in his administration -- Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, Solomon Adler, Virginius Frank Coe, etc. -- who betrayed him to subvert this policy, obstructing aid that FDR had ordered be sent to the KMT. After Truman succeeded FDR, things went from bad to worse, as the opposing faction -- Adolph Berle, Joseph Grew, Frederick Lyon, Robert Bannerman, J. Anthony Panuch, etc. -- was purged from the State Department, leaving the Soviet agents and their collaborators -- Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, John Paton Davis, John Carter Vincent, Philip Jessup, etc. -- unopposed in their manipulation of credulous policy makers like Dean Acheson and George Marshall.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you for that correction on FDR and Truman.

I disagree with the emphasis of influence by the names listed  as manipulating master manipulators like George Marshall.


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Marshall may have been a "master manipulator" as you keep saying, but I see no evidence of it in the record. He may have been wise, but he could only make decisions based on the information he had.

Having spent his entire career in the Army, Marshall knew nothing about the office politics of the State Department, or about the factions therein. He relied on Acheson who, according to Berle, headed the "pro-Russian" faction at State. Marshall had no experience of such problems, there being no "pro-Russian" faction in the Army command.

Acheson personally fired Panuch his first day on the job, then systematically got rid of everyone who opposed his faction. He told Marshall that the first order of business was to move the State Department to larger quarters, where thousands of people from hastily-vetted wartime outfits like OWI, BEA and OSS were dumped into the State Department headquarters -- among them an unbelievable number of Soviet agents. State's security hawks having been purged, these people had free reign.

Acheson trusted and believed such people, for example, publicly defending his "principal assistant" Alger Hiss even after his conviction. Such agents falsified intelligence, manipulated data, and parroted the Soviet line, that Chiang was a corrupt "fascist" while Mao was incorruptible and "democratic," that the KMT was doomed and Communism the wave of the future, etc. Those who knew better had been purged, so such counsel went unopposed.

While the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White manipulated the Chinese currency to cause economic collapse, and the Soviets massively stepped up aid to the Communists, Acheson willfully obstructed aid to Chiang in defiance of the law, and Marshall never knew what was happening.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sophistry, Mark.  Conclusiions based on possibilities.  You did not spend a lifetime in the military then six years as Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs, then many years as Sec of Defense and Sec of State.  You need the smoking gun evidence, not the assumptions.  You build an interesting case, but it does not substantiate Marshall and Truman as tools of Soviet infilitrators.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mark LaRochelle said:


> Marshall may have been a "master manipulator" as you keep saying, but I see no evidence of it in the record. He may have been wise, but he could only make decisions based on the information he had.
> 
> Having spent his entire career in the Army, Marshall knew nothing about the office politics of the State Department, or about the factions therein. He relied on Acheson who, according to Berle, headed the "pro-Russian" faction at State. Marshall had no experience of such problems, there being no "pro-Russian" faction in the Army command.
> 
> Acheson personally fired Panuch his first day on the job, then systematically got rid of everyone who opposed his faction. He told Marshall that the first order of business was to move the State Department to larger quarters, where thousands of people from hastily-vetted wartime outfits like OWI, BEA and OSS were dumped into the State Department headquarters -- among them an unbelievable number of Soviet agents. State's security hawks having been purged, these people had free reign.
> 
> Acheson trusted and believed such people, for example, publicly defending his "principal assistant" Alger Hiss even after his conviction. Such agents falsified intelligence, manipulated data, and parroted the Soviet line, that Chiang was a corrupt "fascist" while Mao was incorruptible and "democratic," that the KMT was doomed and Communism the wave of the future, etc. Those who knew better had been purged, so such counsel went unopposed.
> 
> While the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White manipulated the Chinese currency to cause economic collapse, and the Soviets massively stepped up aid to the Communists, Acheson willfully obstructed aid to Chiang in defiance of the law, and Marshall never knew what was happening.



I wonder, were the Soviets ever totally cleaned out from State? Are their descendants still operating today?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CF's remarks demonstrate him as a tool and flunky of the far right nutter wing nuts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Komrade Jake. 

Unshakable faith in the Motherland.


----------



## koshergrl

McCarthy was right in his actions.

Of course the liberal swill still hate him. They're anti-American pieces of shit,  of course they hate him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

koshergrl said:


> McCarthy was right in his actions.
> 
> Of course the liberal swill still hate him. They're anti-American pieces of shit,  of course they hate him.



"Commie-crats"

Same reason they hate Reagan, he identified their home tean as evil and set out to defeat them


----------



## koshergrl

Yup.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Notice through this and other threads the modern day useful idiots don't have any problem with the idea that our government was infiltrated by Communists.

Are they ok with it? They must be, how else to explain their reaction?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The nutters like koshergirl and frank are entitled to their unfounded opinions.

McCarthy is not going to be rehabilitated.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The nutters like koshergirl and frank are entitled to their unfounded opinions.
> 
> McCarthy is not going to be rehabilitated.



See what I mean?  Commie-crat to the bitter end


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mark LaRochelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall may have been a "master manipulator" as you keep saying, but I see no evidence of it in the record. He may have been wise, but he could only make decisions based on the information he had.
> 
> Having spent his entire career in the Army, Marshall knew nothing about the office politics of the State Department, or about the factions therein. He relied on Acheson who, according to Berle, headed the "pro-Russian" faction at State. Marshall had no experience of such problems, there being no "pro-Russian" faction in the Army command.
> 
> Acheson personally fired Panuch his first day on the job, then systematically got rid of everyone who opposed his faction. He told Marshall that the first order of business was to move the State Department to larger quarters, where thousands of people from hastily-vetted wartime outfits like OWI, BEA and OSS were dumped into the State Department headquarters -- among them an unbelievable number of Soviet agents. State's security hawks having been purged, these people had free reign.
> 
> Acheson trusted and believed such people, for example, publicly defending his "principal assistant" Alger Hiss even after his conviction. Such agents falsified intelligence, manipulated data, and parroted the Soviet line, that Chiang was a corrupt "fascist" while Mao was incorruptible and "democratic," that the KMT was doomed and Communism the wave of the future, etc. Those who knew better had been purged, so such counsel went unopposed.
> 
> While the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White manipulated the Chinese currency to cause economic collapse, and the Soviets massively stepped up aid to the Communists, Acheson willfully obstructed aid to Chiang in defiance of the law, and Marshall never knew what was happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder, were the Soviets ever totally cleaned out from State? Are their descendants still operating today?
Click to expand...


Let me add to your thesis so that some of our friends can connect the dots.

1. As damaging to the nation as the Soviet agents were, the communist philosophers were even more so. They spread the virus throughout academia. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish *a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt* under the sponsorship of Felix Weil. Like Marxs benefactor, Friedrich Engels, Weil was the son of a wealthy capitalist and an ardent Marxist who had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Frankfurt University. These rich slackers used family money to fund the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

2. Under Horkheimers leadership the Frankfurt School attracted some brilliant scholars and intellectuals such as Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. Like Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lukacs, Bela Kun and other notable European Marxists in the early 1900s, many of the Frankfurt scholars were secular Jews, a fact that the Nazis successfully exploited in their propaganda regarding a Jewish conspiracy of Communist intellectuals who were perverting German society. 

3. As a result of the ascension of the Nazis, the Frankfurt School moved to Geneva, and then to New York City. The openness, freedom and liberty of the United States is all they needed to infect this society and its cultural institutions. Too many simply ignored the onslaughtAnd the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist intellectual clique is ignore it! Breitbart, Righteous Indignation, p. 114.

4.  There is a straight line from the Frankfurt School to the formation in many colleges and universities of programs, and departments of African-American Studies, Ethnic Studies, Feminist Studies, Peace Studies, and LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender) Studies. 

5. The Frankfurt School of philosophers emigrated from Nazi Germany and became dyspeptic critics of American culture. Several landed in Southern California where they were disturbed by the consumer culture and the gospel of relentless cheeriness. Depressive by nature, they focused on the disappointments and venality that surrounded them and how unnecessary it all was. It could be paradise, Theodor Adorno complained, but it was only California. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed4.html


Now, who helped get the Frankfurt School situated in America? 


The same man who was a major critic of Senator McCarthy....

America was up for helping scholars fleeing from Germany. The guy in charge of this was *Edward R. Murrow, the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PoliticalChic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark LaRochelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall may have been a "master manipulator" as you keep saying, but I see no evidence of it in the record. He may have been wise, but he could only make decisions based on the information he had.
> 
> Having spent his entire career in the Army, Marshall knew nothing about the office politics of the State Department, or about the factions therein. He relied on Acheson who, according to Berle, headed the "pro-Russian" faction at State. Marshall had no experience of such problems, there being no "pro-Russian" faction in the Army command.
> 
> Acheson personally fired Panuch his first day on the job, then systematically got rid of everyone who opposed his faction. He told Marshall that the first order of business was to move the State Department to larger quarters, where thousands of people from hastily-vetted wartime outfits like OWI, BEA and OSS were dumped into the State Department headquarters -- among them an unbelievable number of Soviet agents. State's security hawks having been purged, these people had free reign.
> 
> Acheson trusted and believed such people, for example, publicly defending his "principal assistant" Alger Hiss even after his conviction. Such agents falsified intelligence, manipulated data, and parroted the Soviet line, that Chiang was a corrupt "fascist" while Mao was incorruptible and "democratic," that the KMT was doomed and Communism the wave of the future, etc. Those who knew better had been purged, so such counsel went unopposed.
> 
> While the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White manipulated the Chinese currency to cause economic collapse, and the Soviets massively stepped up aid to the Communists, Acheson willfully obstructed aid to Chiang in defiance of the law, and Marshall never knew what was happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder, were the Soviets ever totally cleaned out from State? Are their descendants still operating today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me add to your thesis so that some of our friends can connect the dots.
> 
> 1. As damaging to the nation as the Soviet agents were, the communist philosophers were even more so. They spread the virus throughout academia. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish *a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt* under the sponsorship of Felix Weil. Like Marxs benefactor, Friedrich Engels, Weil was the son of a wealthy capitalist and an ardent Marxist who had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Frankfurt University. These rich slackers used family money to fund the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf
> 
> 2. Under Horkheimers leadership the Frankfurt School attracted some brilliant scholars and intellectuals such as Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. Like Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lukacs, Bela Kun and other notable European Marxists in the early 1900s, many of the Frankfurt scholars were secular Jews, a fact that the Nazis successfully exploited in their propaganda regarding a Jewish conspiracy of Communist intellectuals who were perverting German society.
> 
> 3. As a result of the ascension of the Nazis, the Frankfurt School moved to Geneva, and then to New York City. The openness, freedom and liberty of the United States is all they needed to infect this society and its cultural institutions. Too many simply ignored the onslaughtAnd the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist intellectual clique is ignore it! Breitbart, Righteous Indignation, p. 114.
> 
> 4.  There is a straight line from the Frankfurt School to the formation in many colleges and universities of programs, and departments of African-American Studies, Ethnic Studies, Feminist Studies, Peace Studies, and LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender) Studies.
> 
> 5. The Frankfurt School of philosophers emigrated from Nazi Germany and became dyspeptic critics of American culture. Several landed in Southern California where they were disturbed by the consumer culture and the gospel of relentless cheeriness. Depressive by nature, they focused on the disappointments and venality that surrounded them and how unnecessary it all was. It could be paradise, Theodor Adorno complained, but it was only California. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed4.html
> 
> 
> Now, who helped get the Frankfurt School situated in America?
> 
> 
> The same man who was a major critic of Senator McCarthy....
> 
> America was up for helping scholars fleeing from Germany. The guy in charge of this was *Edward R. Murrow, the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars.*
Click to expand...


Ed Murrow and Ernie Pyle should have traded places


----------



## Mark LaRochelle

Mark LaRochelle said:


> Acheson willfully obstructed aid to Chiang in defiance of the law, and Marshall never knew what was happening.





JakeStarkey said:


> You build an interesting case, but it does not substantiate Marshall and Truman as tools of Soviet infilitrators.



Are you arguing that Marshall _was _aware that Acheson was defying the law to obstruct US aid to China? Careful, you're starting to sound like a McCarthyite!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Jake, one name.

Name one innocent ruined by McCarthy


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bump to help educate the uninformed


----------



## koshergrl

Jake's a lying sack. He trolls threads, then disappears when he's asked to support his ridiculous statements.

He's been doing it for years. Don't give him credence by actually engaging with him, just neg him, point at him, and laugh.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero



I know one.
"Joe McCarthy".

Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.  

See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
Click to expand...


Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
Click to expand...


Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!

Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
Click to expand...


Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
Kinda like Joe McCarthy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
Click to expand...


Yes, all of your posts are like that.

Only you could join a thread about an exhaustively-researched book, produce repeated posts doing nothing but blindly re-asserting the very lies debunked by the book (which you've never bothered to read), and then think YOU are the "informed" one.

Tell us the truth.  You have an instruction manual explaining how to be a 100% dumbfuck douchebag in ten easy steps, don't you?


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
Click to expand...

Wow you're so like Jake right there. You're busted so you immediately turn around and accuse her of that which she's nailed you on....


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all of your posts are like that.
> 
> Only you could join a thread about an exhaustively-researched book, produce repeated posts doing nothing but blindly re-asserting the very lies debunked by the book (which you've never bothered to read), and then think YOU are the "informed" one.
> 
> Tell us the truth.  You have an instruction manual explaining how to be a 100% dumbfuck douchebag in ten easy steps, don't you?
Click to expand...


News must travel slow on your planet.  We did all this TWO YEARS ago.  The only reason it came back up is Frank just bumped it to take the attention off his inability to find quotes and genealogies.  Check the frickin' dates.

And I've done my own research long before this, thank you very much.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all of your posts are like that.
> 
> Only you could join a thread about an exhaustively-researched book, produce repeated posts doing nothing but blindly re-asserting the very lies debunked by the book (which you've never bothered to read), and then think YOU are the "informed" one.
> 
> Tell us the truth.  You have an instruction manual explaining how to be a 100% dumbfuck douchebag in ten easy steps, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News must travel slow on your planet.  We did all this TWO YEARS ago.  The only reason it came back up is Frank just bumped it to take the attention off his inability to find quotes and genealogies.  Check the frickin' dates.
> 
> And I've done my own research long before this, thank you very much.
Click to expand...


Pogo did "research" LOL

did it involve cheekbones?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all of your posts are like that.
> 
> Only you could join a thread about an exhaustively-researched book, produce repeated posts doing nothing but blindly re-asserting the very lies debunked by the book (which you've never bothered to read), and then think YOU are the "informed" one.
> 
> Tell us the truth.  You have an instruction manual explaining how to be a 100% dumbfuck douchebag in ten easy steps, don't you?
Click to expand...


Mark Rochelle actually visited the thread, with a large paddle, to spank Jake and other Progressives


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
Click to expand...



Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
And the public understood that fact.

a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White


b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
Ibid.


----------



## bodecea

CrusaderFrank said:


> So how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?
> 
> It's pretty quiet, that can only mean Progressives chugged their STFU Juice
> 
> Here's the list of people who should have had seats alongside Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
> 
> Lauchlin Currie
> Solomon Adler
> V Frank Coe
> Cedric Belfrage
> T.A. Bisson
> Harold Glasser
> David Karr
> Mary Jane Keeney
> Leonard Mins
> Franz Newmann


Lucille Ball?


----------



## PoliticalChic

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?
> 
> It's pretty quiet, that can only mean Progressives chugged their STFU Juice
> 
> Here's the list of people who should have had seats alongside Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
> 
> Lauchlin Currie
> Solomon Adler
> V Frank Coe
> Cedric Belfrage
> T.A. Bisson
> Harold Glasser
> David Karr
> Mary Jane Keeney
> Leonard Mins
> Franz Newmann
> 
> 
> 
> Lucille Ball?
Click to expand...



"As she had in her sworn testimony before the committee, Lucy insisted she knew nothing of politics in 1936 and registered as a Communist only to please her grandfather, Fred Hunt, who was a zealous Socialist."
Lucille Ball explains 1936 Communist link


And?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?
> 
> It's pretty quiet, that can only mean Progressives chugged their STFU Juice
> 
> Here's the list of people who should have had seats alongside Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
> 
> Lauchlin Currie
> Solomon Adler
> V Frank Coe
> Cedric Belfrage
> T.A. Bisson
> Harold Glasser
> David Karr
> Mary Jane Keeney
> Leonard Mins
> Franz Newmann
> 
> 
> 
> Lucille Ball?
Click to expand...


When does Stats give you a new avatar?  Do all your sock account have to use it?


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> o how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?



Ummmm... Mao didn't even win his civil war, let alone take over the country, until 1949, after FDR was already dead four years.
You know that, right?




PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
Click to expand...


"June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.


I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
  The right to criticize;
  The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
  The right to protest;
  The right of independent thought.
The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*

I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.

As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

--- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")   


Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.


Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all of your posts are like that.
> 
> Only you could join a thread about an exhaustively-researched book, produce repeated posts doing nothing but blindly re-asserting the very lies debunked by the book (which you've never bothered to read), and then think YOU are the "informed" one.
> 
> Tell us the truth.  You have an instruction manual explaining how to be a 100% dumbfuck douchebag in ten easy steps, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News must travel slow on your planet.  We did all this TWO YEARS ago.  The only reason it came back up is Frank just bumped it to take the attention off his inability to find quotes and genealogies.  Check the frickin' dates.
> 
> And I've done my own research long before this, thank you very much.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  We know you.  Research = Repeated what you wanted to believe over and over, assuring yourself that you're right.


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  "Everyone knows", so we'll have no truck with that whole "truth" nonsense.  You lefties established a narrative, and everyone else better by God get on board and believe it!
> 
> Unless they want to end up victims of the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bizarre post, full of nonreferenced ideas and words, signifying nothing.
> Kinda like Joe McCarthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all of your posts are like that.
> 
> Only you could join a thread about an exhaustively-researched book, produce repeated posts doing nothing but blindly re-asserting the very lies debunked by the book (which you've never bothered to read), and then think YOU are the "informed" one.
> 
> Tell us the truth.  You have an instruction manual explaining how to be a 100% dumbfuck douchebag in ten easy steps, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Rochelle actually visited the thread, with a large paddle, to spank Jake and other Progressives
Click to expand...


I remember.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> o how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm... Mao didn't even win his civil war, let alone take over the country, until 1949, after FDR was already dead four years.
> You know that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
Click to expand...


You know Communist spies working at the WH and State screwed over Shek to help Progressive Hero Mao, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> o how are you guys making out on looking up the Communist spies who ran the US Treasury and State for FDR and spoke so highly of Progressive Mao, the greatest mass murder in human history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm... Mao didn't even win his civil war, let alone take over the country, until 1949, after FDR was already dead four years.
> You know that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Number of innocents ruined by McCarthy is still zero
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know one.
> "Joe McCarthy".
> 
> Oh wait, you did say "innocents".  Never mind.
> 
> See you on the next revisionist-desperation bump in 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
Click to expand...



Gads...you are a dunce.
There is a straight line from FDR's maintaining Stalin's regime, to Mao, to the Korean War.

1. Major George Racey Jordan was in charge of expediting materials to the USSR. He testified before Congress that* materials and instructions to build that atomic bomb were sent to Stalin*. Jordan had proof that the orders he received from the White House insisted that everything requested be sent....priority! Even ahead of material the US army needed.

*2. *And the result, a disaster for America. On April 5, 1951, Judge Irving R. Kaufman sentenced the Rosenbergs to death for theft of atomic secrets, and, resulted in "the communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason." 
Judge Kaufman's Sentencing Statement in the Rosenberg Case

*a. *It is clear today, based on archival evidence, unearthed by researchers in Russia and released in the United States, that Kaufman was correct.* "Absent an atomic bomb, Stalin would not have released Pyongyang's army to conquer the entire Korean peninsula. Confident that his possession of atomic weapons neutralized America's strategic advantage, Stalin was emboldened to unleash war in Korea in 1950." *Haynes, Klehr, and 
Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.  143, 545. And Romerstein and Breindel,"The Venona Secrets," p. xv, 253.

b. It is important to connect the treachery with the impact of that treachery: the theft of the nuclear technology with 36,940 Americans killed, 91,134 wounded, and 8,176 still missing, and this does not include at least two million civilian lives claimed on both sides. Bruce Cumings, "The Korean War: A History.' Included were 1.3 million South Korean casualties, including 400,000 dead. North Korea, 2 million casualties, and 900,000 Chinese soldiers killed.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
Click to expand...



Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?

In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]

He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.

​​


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
Click to expand...




Senator McCarthy was a hero who put the spotlight on communists in sensitive government positions, communists embraced and made comfortable by Franklin Roosevelt.

And you remain a dunce.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
Click to expand...


Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.

Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.

Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating how leftists always consider destroying people's lives to be nothing more than "justice" brought on oneself for the unspeakable crime of getting in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
Click to expand...


Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.

Anything else?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...


Actually, most of your "knowledge" is no more than a repetition of the Big Lie, and the fact that you think Wikipedia is impeccably sourced and 100% reliable just proves it.  The more you proclaim it as proof, the more I laugh at you.  And honey, I already laugh at you more than the last hooker you hired.

Newflash, shitstain:  it may be faster and easier to post bullshit online than to publish it in books, but the same rule still applies.  Just because someone writes it down doesn't make it true.


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, most of your "knowledge" is no more than a repetition of the Big Lie, and the fact that you think Wikipedia is impeccably sourced and 100% reliable just proves it.  The more you proclaim it as proof, the more I laugh at you.  And honey, I already laugh at you more than the last hooker you hired.
> 
> Newflash, shitstain:  it may be faster and easier to post bullshit online than to publish it in books, but the same rule still applies.  Just because someone writes it down doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...


Yuh huh.  "All books are bullshit unless I happen to agree with them".

Poster please.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe McCarthy destroyed himself, even aside from drinking himself to death, and got the ignominious end he deserved.  And that's his right to do that.  Throw all the pity parties you want but he made his bed and lied in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...


Your "History books" are crap that blame McCarthy for a "Red Scare"

McCarthy gave his first speech on Communist infiltration of the WH and State 8 months AFTER your USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months BEFORE your hero Mao and the NoKo's were killing US soldiers and Marines in Korea.

I wonder sometimes if Democrat Communist spies were relaying Korean troop information back to their masters


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "History books" are crap that blame McCarthy for a "Red Scare"
> 
> McCarthy gave his first speech on Communist infiltration of the WH and State 8 months AFTER your USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months BEFORE your hero Mao and the NoKo's were killing US soldiers and Marines in Korea.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if Democrat Communist spies were relaying Korean troops information back to their masters
Click to expand...



In the same way "Democrat Communist spies" sandbagged Chiang Kaishek.


1. FDR's insistence on the Soviet agents who infiltrated his administration resulted in *the United States sabotage of Chaing Kai-Shek and the Nationalists in China in favor of the Mao and the Communists.* From the book “Blacklisted From History,” by M. Stanton Evans:*Soviet agents in the U.S. State department (and Treasury)*worked actively to damage confidence of our government, in the*(Nationalist) Chinese *fighting in their own country, as our allies against the Japanese, and *in favor of the Communist insurgency of Mao Tse-Tung *and Chou En-Lai.

While Chiang Kai-Shek was busy as our ally fighting the Japanese, White, Currie, Coe, Glasser, and Hiss were *doing all they could to undermine him in favor of Mao and the communists.*

a. “Another example of [Harry Dexter] *White acting as an agent of influence for the Soviet Union was his obstruction of a proposed $200 million loan to Nationalist China *in 1943, which he had been officially instructed to execute,[52] at a time when inflation was spiraling out of control.”
Harry Dexter White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. [Owen] Lattimore was leaking information to the Soviets while he was an advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and that the *Soviets considered Lattimore to be "working for them".*FOIA


c. The spies that FDR put in place continued to move Democrats in the Communist Direction. This, from a newspaper at the time:

"Mr. Truman said that the nationalists should have surrendered because they didn't have a chance to win...the opinion of American ambassador Leighton Stuart was that the *failure of American aid to come at the opportune moment was the real cause of the weakness of nationalists* and the disintegration of their armies....many military commanders went over to the enemy because they saw the United States withdrawing moral support from Chiang Kai-shek. Mr. Truman boldly *defends what Treasury did. He doesn't mention Harry Dexter White,* mentioned in congressional hearings *as a communist spy,* sat at Treasury with full power to say when the money promised Chiang Kai-shek would be forwarded or withheld." Toledo Blade, Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PoliticalChic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "History books" are crap that blame McCarthy for a "Red Scare"
> 
> McCarthy gave his first speech on Communist infiltration of the WH and State 8 months AFTER your USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months BEFORE your hero Mao and the NoKo's were killing US soldiers and Marines in Korea.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if Democrat Communist spies were relaying Korean troops information back to their masters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way "Democrat Communist spies" sandbagged Chiang Kaishek.
> 
> 
> 1. FDR's insistence on the Soviet agents who infiltrated his administration resulted in *the United States sabotage of Chaing Kai-Shek and the Nationalists in China in favor of the Mao and the Communists.* From the book “Blacklisted From History,” by M. Stanton Evans:*Soviet agents in the U.S. State department (and Treasury)*worked actively to damage confidence of our government, in the*(Nationalist)
> 
> Chinese *fighting in their own country, as our allies against the Japanese, and *in favor of the Communist unsurgency of Mao Tse-Tung*and Chou En-Lai.
> 
> While Chiang Kai-Shek was busy as our ally fighting the Japanese, White, Currie, Coe, Glasser, and Hiss were *doing all they could to undermine him in favor of Mao and the communists.*
> 
> a. “Another example of [Harry Dexter]*White acting as an agent of influence for the Soviet Union was his obstruction of a proposed $200 million loan to Nationalist China*in 1943, which he had been officially instructed to execute,[52] at a time when inflation was spiraling out of control.”
> Harry Dexter White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> b. [Owen] Lattimore was leaking information to the Soviets while he was an advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and that the*Soviets considered Lattimore to be "working for them".*FOIA
> 
> 
> c. The spies that FDR put in place continued to move Democrats in the Communist Direction. This, from a newspaper at the time:
> 
> "Mr. Truman said that the nationalists should have surrendered because they didn't have a chance to win...the opinion of American ambassador Leighton Stuart was that the *failure of American aid to come at the opportune moment was the real cause of the weakness of nationalists* and the disintegration of their armies....many military commanders went over to the enemy because they saw the United States withdrawing moral support from Chiang Kai-shek. Mr. Truman boldly *defends what Treasury did. He doesn't mention Harry Dexter White,* mentioned in congressional hearings as a communist spy, sat at Treasury with full power to say when the money promised Chiang Kai-shek would be forwarded or withheld." Toledo Blade, Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search
Click to expand...


It's amazing how few people know that Communist spies in the WH and State helped Mao take control of Chine. After all, Mao was a Progressive and needed their help


----------



## guno

CrusaderFrank said:


> The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.
> 
> Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!
> 
> Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)
> 
> Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!


In his 1961 book, _The Murderers_, Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, announced that he knew of a prominent member of Congress in the 1950s who was addicted to heroin. Anslinger went to the member of Congress and demanded that he stop using heroin. The Congressman refused and dared Anslinger to reveal the addiction, arguing that, if Anslinger did reveal the addiction, it would cause irreparable harm to the Free World. 

In order to keep the addiction secret, Anslinger arranged for the Congressman to receive a secret supply of drugs from a pharmacist.

Who was the Congressman?  Senator Joseph McCarthy, of anti-communist fame.

Was Senator Joseph McCarthy a heroin addict?


----------



## guno

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 dope addicted idiot.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, most of your "knowledge" is no more than a repetition of the Big Lie, and the fact that you think Wikipedia is impeccably sourced and 100% reliable just proves it.  The more you proclaim it as proof, the more I laugh at you.  And honey, I already laugh at you more than the last hooker you hired.
> 
> Newflash, shitstain:  it may be faster and easier to post bullshit online than to publish it in books, but the same rule still applies.  Just because someone writes it down doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "All books are bullshit unless I happen to agree with them".
> 
> Poster please.
Click to expand...


That's an amusing, if delusional, interpretation of my words.

I didn't say ALL books are bullshit.  I said being in a book doesn't necessarily make something true.  It's quite easy to find a book written by a lying hack, particularly on this subject, upon which the left expended so much effort for so many years to hide the truth.  Indeed, it would be very difficult to find any book written before a certain time period that contained anything BUT the Big Lie you lefties are so married to and invested in.  And the likelihood that you really care about the truth enough to stay abreast of later revelations on the subject is very slim.

And all of this, of course, is predicated on my generous acceptance of the idea that an illiterate drooler like you actually owns any books at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200

guno said:


> 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 dope addicted idiot.



Ooh, look, you have the ability to blindly assert the same big lie AGAIN!  THIS time must make it TRUE!  Because YOU said it!

Or maybe you're just a brainless, prattling twit.  Guess which one I'm favoring?


----------



## mamooth

The real commies still give thanks to their bestest pal, Joe McCarthy. By deflecting all the attention on to innocent people, McCarthy diverted attention away from the real commie spies, so they could operate unhindered.

It's possible -- even probable -- that modern conservatives are using the same strategy to aid both their commie pals and their islamofascist pals. The louder they deny it, the more likely it is to be true.


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a true American.
> And the public understood that fact.
> 
> a. "*A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated";*31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy."
> Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White
> 
> 
> b. "More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him [a censure vote] but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties."
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "June 1950" huh?  Too bad they didn't ask me; I would have checked the box for "dishonest megalomaniac drunken womanizing gambling fuckbag who forged his CO's sig to get a medal and made up a war story that even Brian Williams couldn't think up to create a fake nickname who then set about with "at long last, no shame" waggling a "list" of "evildoers" that nobody got to see, the number of which changed every time he brought it up, the lying asshole", but I'm not sure they could have fit that line on the page in 1950 mimeograph machines.  Plus it's a really long sentence and some Catholic school penguin would have sentenced her students to diagram it.
> 
> 
> I got yer June 1950 right here Toots, and this is a genuine American patriot, not the scumbag waste of human protoplasm of the two-year old topic.
> 
> I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> The right to criticize;
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> The right to protest;
> The right of independent thought.
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise * thought control *would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.
> 
> Today our country is being *psychologically divided *by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.
> 
> The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.
> 
> The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.
> 
> Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.
> 
> Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or *intellectual honesty* would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the  Four Horsemen of Calumny -- *Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.*
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.
> 
> As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
> 
> As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate -- and I use the word "debate" advisedly.
> 
> As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for* irresponsible sensationalism*.  I am not proud of the *reckless abandon* in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.
> 
> I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for *selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity*.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.
> 
> As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide, and conquer."  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or "cover-up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.
> 
> --- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), "Delcaration of Conscience", co-signed by six other Republican Senators, in response to McCarthyism ..... June 1, 1950.​(or as POTUS Eisenhower called it once McCarthy had met his comeuppance, "McCarthy-wasism")
> 
> 
> Oh I made a couple of words bold that are kind of important in their implications.
> 
> 
> Revisionists.  God love 'em they keep trying, even if it's only selling inside Duh Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "History books" are crap that blame McCarthy for a "Red Scare"
> 
> McCarthy gave his first speech on Communist infiltration of the WH and State 8 months AFTER your USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months BEFORE your hero Mao and the NoKo's were killing US soldiers and Marines in Korea.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if Democrat Communist spies were relaying Korean troop information back to their masters
Click to expand...


I didn't even bring up the Red Scare Frank, but we can imbibe if you're buyin'.
Far as I know the Red Scare preceded McCarthy.  It's what he hopped on to ride into the abyss of dishonest demagoguery.  But no, he didn't invent it.  That would require actual creativity, and that would require, you know -- thought.

I didn't bring up the USSR in Berlin, Mao, or the NoKos either.  That's about as honest as Joe McCarthy's crapola.


----------



## Pogo

guno said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.
> 
> Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!
> 
> Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)
> 
> Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!
> 
> 
> 
> In his 1961 book, _The Murderers_, Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, announced that he knew of a prominent member of Congress in the 1950s who was addicted to heroin. Anslinger went to the member of Congress and demanded that he stop using heroin. The Congressman refused and dared Anslinger to reveal the addiction, arguing that, if Anslinger did reveal the addiction, it would cause irreparable harm to the Free World.
> 
> In order to keep the addiction secret, Anslinger arranged for the Congressman to receive a secret supply of drugs from a pharmacist.
> 
> Who was the Congressman?  Senator Joseph McCarthy, of anti-communist fame.
> 
> Was Senator Joseph McCarthy a heroin addict?
Click to expand...


Yup, there's that too.  The circumstances of McCarthy's death from hepatitis have always been murky.  He certainly consumed enough alcohol for that to have been a causation but the morphine.could certainly have exacerbated it.  But to me the story is more instructive for his entitlement attitude and the arrogance of suggesting that revealing his habit would bring down the "free world".  What a fucking moron.


----------



## g5000

During the Depression, many Americans were polarized.  Some went Left to the communists, and some went Right to the nazis.  

The communist memberships of the 30s came back to haunt those people in the 50s.

The problem with assholes like McCarthy is that innocent people were swept up in the pants shitting panic. 

Were there Soviet spies in our government?  Sure.  Absolutely.  Even in our nuclear weapons program during the Manhattan project.

McCarthy took advantage of that.  He turned the whole mess into theater.  A witch hunt where the mere threat of calling you a communist could compromise you and destroy your life forever.

THAT is what makes McCarthy a lying, drunk, asshole.

The fact there were spies among us in no way exonerates that fuckhead.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If anything, McCarthy vastly understated the extent to which Democrat White House were doing the bidding of Stalin and Mao.  He made his first speech in Wheeling in 1950 about halfway between the time that Stalin tried to start WWIII in Berlin and Mao gave North Korea the go ahead to start a war.  Every single person he accused of being a Communist or a useful idiot was in fact one of the other.

Remember "Have you no decency?"  Well Sen, Welch's accused by McCarthy, was in fact working with the Communists.

McCarthy should be on the $20


----------



## koshergrl

CrusaderFrank said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeepers!  So what happened next Uncle Pogo?
> 
> In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[12] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[22]
> 
> He also _helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign_ in 1954.[11] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke...in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[20] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954.[8]  (Wiki)​There's your pathetic hero in action, in typical style.  Smith was right, and courageous; McCarthy was an opportunistic asshole who never missed an opportunity to lie, misrepresent, impugn and pander like a crack whore for his own gain.
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, we should get busy carving it in stone, because it MUST be true.
> 
> Whatever else Wikipedia is, it's a stain on the American political scene for encouraging you dickholes to believe you're researching and becoming informed while allowing you to be as lazy and stupid as you ever were.
> 
> Cripes, you leftists will believe anything posted on the Internet if it's what you want to hear, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most of my knowledge on this comes from history books.  You know books?  Those things that are used as source material with links on Wikipedia (along with newspaper stories, studies, white papers and other docs)?  And I linked to Wiki to supplement my comments because it's a way to point you to those books, since I do not want you coming to my house to read my books.  I already did that.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "History books" are crap that blame McCarthy for a "Red Scare"
> 
> McCarthy gave his first speech on Communist infiltration of the WH and State 8 months AFTER your USSR tried to start WWIII in Berlin and 4 months BEFORE your hero Mao and the NoKo's were killing US soldiers and Marines in Korea.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if Democrat Communist spies were relaying Korean troops information back to their masters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way "Democrat Communist spies" sandbagged Chiang Kaishek.
> 
> 
> 1. FDR's insistence on the Soviet agents who infiltrated his administration resulted in *the United States sabotage of Chaing Kai-Shek and the Nationalists in China in favor of the Mao and the Communists.* From the book “Blacklisted From History,” by M. Stanton Evans:*Soviet agents in the U.S. State department (and Treasury)*worked actively to damage confidence of our government, in the*(Nationalist)
> 
> Chinese *fighting in their own country, as our allies against the Japanese, and *in favor of the Communist unsurgency of Mao Tse-Tung*and Chou En-Lai.
> 
> While Chiang Kai-Shek was busy as our ally fighting the Japanese, White, Currie, Coe, Glasser, and Hiss were *doing all they could to undermine him in favor of Mao and the communists.*
> 
> a. “Another example of [Harry Dexter]*White acting as an agent of influence for the Soviet Union was his obstruction of a proposed $200 million loan to Nationalist China*in 1943, which he had been officially instructed to execute,[52] at a time when inflation was spiraling out of control.”
> Harry Dexter White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> b. [Owen] Lattimore was leaking information to the Soviets while he was an advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and that the*Soviets considered Lattimore to be "working for them".*FOIA
> 
> 
> c. The spies that FDR put in place continued to move Democrats in the Communist Direction. This, from a newspaper at the time:
> 
> "Mr. Truman said that the nationalists should have surrendered because they didn't have a chance to win...the opinion of American ambassador Leighton Stuart was that the *failure of American aid to come at the opportune moment was the real cause of the weakness of nationalists* and the disintegration of their armies....many military commanders went over to the enemy because they saw the United States withdrawing moral support from Chiang Kai-shek. Mr. Truman boldly *defends what Treasury did. He doesn't mention Harry Dexter White,* mentioned in congressional hearings as a communist spy, sat at Treasury with full power to say when the money promised Chiang Kai-shek would be forwarded or withheld." Toledo Blade, Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how few people know that Communist spies in the WH and State helped Mao take control of Chine. After all, Mao was a Progressive and needed their help
Click to expand...

Children are not taught history in school. 
And in fact, they are fed an alternate reality altogether.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

g5000 said:


> During the Depression, many Americans were polarized.  Some went Left to the communists, and some went Right to the nazis.
> 
> The communist memberships of the 30s came back to haunt those people in the 50s.
> 
> The problem with assholes like McCarthy is that innocent people were swept up in the pants shitting panic.
> 
> Were there Soviet spies in our government?  Sure.  Absolutely.  Even in our nuclear weapons program during the Manhattan project.
> 
> McCarthy took advantage of that.  He turned the whole mess into theater.  A witch hunt where the mere threat of calling you a communist could compromise you and destroy your life forever.
> 
> THAT is what makes McCarthy a lying, drunk, asshole.
> 
> The fact there were spies among us in no way exonerates that fuckhead.



Who were these "innocent people"?

Can you name a few of them?  Zero Mostel?  Wodoy Allen?  Brittany Spears?


----------



## koshergrl

McCarthy was absolutely 100 percent right, and we should have kept going.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wow, this is a blast from the past.


----------



## whitehall

Common sense will tell you that Senator McCarthy couldn't have had influence over HUAC but it doesn't matter to the generations who were taught to blame a single republican for the (unfortunate?) era of Harry Truman's war against communism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

guno said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best, absolute best and a must have book regarding one of the most successful Communist plots ever devised and executed.
> 
> You know the fictional narrative: Joe McCarthy was a drunk, power-hungry liar who used his House UnAmerican Activities Committee (Yeah, why did we even have a HUAC *BEFORE* Joe was elected?) to destroy so many poor innocents including Zero Mostel.
> 
> The truth? You'll want to beat the shit out of ever history teacher you ever had for lying to your face.
> 
> Communists in the US Government (oh, we were and are swamped with them!) covered for Stalin's mass execution of Polish officers at Katyn Forest, handed Yugoslavia to Communist Tito and handed China to Mao....and that only 90 pages in!
> 
> Don't let Progressive lies go unchecked! Educate Yourself!
> 
> We had a HUAC because we had a Communist problem starting with the New Deal and even Democrats cared (before their Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow)
> 
> Buy this book!  Own it! Refer to it frequently!
> 
> 
> 
> In his 1961 book, _The Murderers_, Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, announced that he knew of a prominent member of Congress in the 1950s who was addicted to heroin. Anslinger went to the member of Congress and demanded that he stop using heroin. The Congressman refused and dared Anslinger to reveal the addiction, arguing that, if Anslinger did reveal the addiction, it would cause irreparable harm to the Free World.
> 
> In order to keep the addiction secret, Anslinger arranged for the Congressman to receive a secret supply of drugs from a pharmacist.
> 
> Who was the Congressman?  Senator Joseph McCarthy, of anti-communist fame.
> 
> Was Senator Joseph McCarthy a heroin addict?
Click to expand...

Bullshit fucking liar


----------



## Pogo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Wow, this is a blast from the past.



Nine years later Frank still hasn't figured out what the H in HUAC stands for.....


----------

