Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Our biggest threat is internal, not external. They infest our public universities, the media, government agencies like the EPA, the Obama Administration and this forum.
Really? I can't think of a single Communist on this forum, frankly. Nor any in the Obama administration, which lost its only EX-Communist quite some time ago, and never had anyone who currently was a Communist.
So let's have some names. This should be good.
No, I think you and the rest of the fraidy-cats did the re-branding there.
Would you call somone who refused to stick his hand in a meat grinder a "fraidy-cat?" Scoffing at their critics as paranoiacs is an old communist ploy. People should be afraid of communists. 100 million people were murdered by communists. Millions more lived under brutal repression.
Wipe off the cold sweat and change your depends undergarment. Fear is a dandy way to control people and phantom fears are the best of all because the war never ends. How much would you trade away to not be afraid of communists? Due process? The first amendment? What little right to privacy we have left? Clean air and water? Safe workplace? You would gladly give it all away out of fear.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. You obviously know you're wrong.
I'm not presenting an argument from anything. I'm merely making fun of your absurdity. And I don't know I'm wrong. I know that you're preposterous.
Would you call somone who refused to stick his hand in a meat grinder a "fraidy-cat?" Scoffing at their critics as paranoiacs is an old communist ploy. People should be afraid of communists. 100 million people were murdered by communists. Millions more lived under brutal repression.
Wipe off the cold sweat and change your depends undergarment. Fear is a dandy way to control people and phantom fears are the best of all because the war never ends. How much would you trade away to not be afraid of communists? Due process? The first amendment? What little right to privacy we have left? Clean air and water? Safe workplace? You would gladly give it all away out of fear.
So opposition to communism is the same thing as opposition to due process, the First Amendment, privacy, clean air and water and a safe work place? There's no other alternative?
You're a total knucklehead.
Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, Philip and Mary Jane Keeney, and Howard Shapley
Owen Lattimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused Lattimore in particular of being "the top Russian espionage agent in the United States."[1]
"The accusations led to years of Congressional hearings that did not substantiate the charge that Lattimore had been one (and wartime intercepted Venona cables did not refer to him as one)."
No evidence of membership in the Communist Party, and substantial evidence that he was NOT a Soviet agent.
now know that Currie, Lattimore's intimate friend and patron at the White House, was a Soviet spy. Lattimore's own pro-Soviet outlook was clearly expressed in a memo he wrote to the executive director of the Institute for Pacific Relations, a think tank financed by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, which published his magazine: "For the USSR -- back their international policy in general, but without using their slogans and above all without giving them or anybody else the impression of subservience."
On Currie's advice, Lattimore hired a KGB collaborator named Michael Greenberg as his assistant at Pacific Affairs, and then on his own initiative, Chen Han-shen, a Chinese spy, as his co-editor. Lattimore put his request for the co-editor through the channels of the Comintern. Yet, in the battle with McCarthy, Lattimore was the put-upon hero in the eyes of liberals and Democrats (with important exceptions like Arthur Schlesinger). It takes one to know one - Communism - Salon.com
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". http://foia.fbi.gov/owenlatt/owenlatt1a.pdf
Lattimore was banned by the American legion because of his politics. http://foia.fbi.gov/owenlatt/owenlatt1a.pdf
Lattimore allowed US naval intelligence officer and Soviet Spy Lieutenant Andrew Roth to stay at his home.
"Owen Lattimore saw I. F. Nikishov, the head of the most murderous camp system in the Gulag, as having “a trained and sensitive interest in art and music and also a deep sense of civic responsibility.”" Hoover Digest- 1999 no. 3
Or -- to take another fellow traveler virtually at random -- we should keep in mind the valuable work of Owen Lattimore of Johns Hopkins University. Prof. Lattimore visited Kolyma in the summer of 1944, as an aide to the vice president of the United States, Henry Wallace. He wrote a glowing report on the camp and on its chief warden, Commandant Nikishov, for the National Geographic. Lattimore compared Kolyma to a combination of the Hudson's Bay Company and the TVA. The number of the influential American fellow travelers was, in fact, legion, and I can think of no moral principle that would justify our forgetting what they did and what they did it in aid of. Marxist Dreams and Soviet Realities
"McCarthy also had very revealing information about the Amerasia case. This involved John Stewart Service, a foreign service officer who had been stationed in China, who was arrested for passing classified information to Philip Jaffe, the editor of Amerasia, a pro-Communist magazine. In a major speech, McCarthy charged that the Justice Department failure to prosecute the case was a massive cover-up. "We now know that he was 100 percent correct," Evans said. The FBI wiretapped the meeting where the cover-up was arranged to get Service off. Laughlin Currie, an adviser to President Roosevelt and a known Soviet agent, was involved in this. The Tydings Committee said it could find nothing incriminating in the FBI files of McCarthy target Owen Lattimore, a key adviser to the State Department. Evans read from Lattimore's FBI file. It said in 1941 that Lattimore was a Communist who should be detained in the event of a national emergency. Currie, Service and Lattimore were all players in a conspiracy that engaged in espionage for the Communists and manipulated U.S. policy to their benefit. They maneuvered to cut off aid to the Chinese Nationalists in order to help Mao win control of China. Their efforts succeeded and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan in 1949. We and the Chinese have paid dearly for this betrayal." AIM Report - March A, 2000
It was also during the mid-to-late Forties that Communist sympathizers in the State Department played a key role in the subjugation of mainland China by the Reds. "It is my judgment, and I was in the State Department at the time," said former Ambassador William D. Pawley, "that this whole fiasco, the loss of China and the subsequent difficulties with which the United States has been faced, was the result of mistaken policy of Dean Acheson, Phil Jessup, [Owen] Lattimore, John Carter Vincent, John Service, John Davies, [O.E.] Clubb, and others." Asked if he thought the mistaken policy was the result of "sincere mistakes of judgment," Pawley replied: "No, I don't." The New American - McCarthyism - Forty questions and answers about Senator Joseph McCarthy - May 11, 1987
Owen Lattimore and Selig Harrison both corresponded with Sheila Payne wife of Robert Payne prolific author and biographer of many Communist leaders, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, etc... http://www.sunysb.edu/library/mc318.htm Payne was also linked to O. Edmund Clubb.
Alger Hiss, Owen Lattimore and Selig Harrison all have ties to Johns Hopkins University.
John S. Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In 1950 U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy launched an attack against Service, which led to investigations of the reports Service wrote while stationed in China. Secretary of State Dean Acheson fired Service, but in 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement in a unanimous decision. . . . Service was subject to loyalty and security hearings every year from 1946 to 1951, with the exception of 1948. In each hearing, he was cleared of disloyalty or other wrongdoing. "
No evidence, again, of any wrongdoing.
Service was one of the most outspoken of a clique of Foreign Service Officers who, with a few scholars and journalists, worked during World War II to create a role for communists in the Chinese government and who would have welcomed a complete communist takeover of China. Such a takeover eventually occurred with the victory of the tyrannical regime that killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined. Service reported, based on his personal contacts with Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai in 1945, that the Chinese communists were not like other communists, were very democratic, and had no interest in allying themselves with the Soviet Union. He consistently criticized the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Shek and praised the communists.
The striking failure of the Joiner book is the way it deals with the Amerasia espionage case. The unabashedly pro-communist Amerasia magazine enthusiastically supported the Hitler-Stalin pact. Communist spy Joseph Bernstein, who had once worked for Amerasia, asked for the magazine’s help in 1945 in spying for the Soviet Union. The FBI recorded Amerasia’s editor and publisher Phillip Jaffe saying he saw nothing wrong with giving classified documents to Soviets.
The Office of Strategic Services found hundreds of top secret, secret, and confidential documents in Amerasia’s office, along with a dark room and copying equipment appropriate to espionage but not magazine publishing. Joiner mentions the copying equipment but fails to discuss its significance. Jaffe, a dedicated Marxist, was a major contributor to communist causes. Service says he was told that Jaffe was definitely not a Communist Party member. This may well have been the case because the Soviets tried to keep their espionage operation separate as far as possible from the Communist Party.
During World War II, Service associated with communist spies. Sol Adler, his friend and apartment mate in China, was one. Another, Chi Chau-ting, lived in the same small building. Service’s friend and advisor, Lauchlin Currie, was also a communist spy. Years later, Service spoke of the difficulty he had during World War II telling liberals and communists apart.
Service was at the communist headquarters in China on two occasions in 1944 and 1945. He returned to Washington, D.C., between these periods. He sent typewritten reports to the Army, the State Department, and Vice-President Henry Wallace. He classified them either secret or confidential depending on how sensitive they were. He kept personal carbon copies.
Service was arrested for espionage on June 6, 1945. He admitted providing eight to ten of the dozens of his secret and confidential reports found in Amerasia’s office, along with hundreds of other top secret, secret, and confidential documents. Jaffe said that 19 of the documents came from Service. Many were supplied by State Department employee Emmanuel S. Larsen, who was arrested with Service. A third State Department employee probably supplied others. Service was never convicted of espionage. The Truman administration was anxious to sweep the Amerasia affair under the rug. He was discharged from the State Department by Secretary of State Dean Acheson but eventually reinstated by the Supreme Court. Several years after his reinstatement, he retired realizing that he would never be appointed to a high position. He probably provided informal advice to Nixon concerning his trip to China.
Despite author Lynne Joiner’s efforts, Honorable Survivor fails to document that John Stewart Service was anything but a traitorous spy who deserved to be punished. He helped the Chinese communists. He supplied classified documents to a Soviet espionage operation. Although, according to the author, he may not have known the extent of the Soviet espionage activities and may have eventually realized that he was wrong, the loss of his job and security clearance are hardly excessive penalties for the tremendous harm he did. In fact, the author’s point of view is that John Stewart Service was “persecuted.” While the Service biography is worth reading for its wealth of information, the bias of the author needs to be kept in mind by the reader.
[Philip Keeney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Investigations into this pair were conducted long before McCarthy came on the scene; he did not reveal anything new and basically took the information readily available and ran with it for the sake of publicity.
I can find no references on Google to the name "Howard Shapley." Are you sure you have that name right?
Wipe off the cold sweat and change your depends undergarment. Fear is a dandy way to control people and phantom fears are the best of all because the war never ends. How much would you trade away to not be afraid of communists? Due process? The first amendment? What little right to privacy we have left? Clean air and water? Safe workplace? You would gladly give it all away out of fear.
So opposition to communism is the same thing as opposition to due process, the First Amendment, privacy, clean air and water and a safe work place? There's no other alternative?
You're a total knucklehead.
When someone like you labels everything they hate communism there is no alternative, you would go to any length to soothe your irrational fears.
You're a communist, Dragon.
Of course, you will protest that you're just an ordinary run-of-mill leftist, but there is no practical difference. You want to overthrow capitalism. i.e., your a communist in my book.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. You obviously know you're wrong.
I'm not presenting an argument from anything. I'm merely making fun of your absurdity. And I don't know I'm wrong. I know that you're preposterous.
You're an idiot who isn't fooling anyone.
I'm not presenting an argument from anything. I'm merely making fun of your absurdity. And I don't know I'm wrong. I know that you're preposterous.
You're an idiot who isn't fooling anyone.
I'm not trying to fool anyone. It's hardly necessary. Everyone can see that you're a nut job. I don't need to do anything to accomplish that; you're doing it all yourself.
Yes, you are trying to fool people into believe that you don't endorse the overthrow of the institution of private property, the expropriation of all wealth above a certain amount, and total control by the government of all productive enterprises over a certain size.
Yes, you are trying to fool people into believe that you don't endorse the overthrow of the institution of private property, the expropriation of all wealth above a certain amount, and total control by the government of all productive enterprises over a certain size.
LOL well, as I don't endorse those things, that's hardly fooling people. Now, I certainly do approach them more closely than you would. But then, so did Ronald Reagan. Hell, so did Attila the Hun.
But keep it up. By demonstrating with every post your inability to distinguish between Communism and anything else that isn't on the extreme right, you make it clearer and clearer just how far out in wacko land you are.
Yes, you are trying to fool people into believe that you don't endorse the overthrow of the institution of private property, the expropriation of all wealth above a certain amount, and total control by the government of all productive enterprises over a certain size.
LOL well, as I don't endorse those things, that's hardly fooling people. Now, I certainly do approach them more closely than you would. But then, so did Ronald Reagan. Hell, so did Attila the Hun.
But keep it up. By demonstrating with every post your inability to distinguish between Communism and anything else that isn't on the extreme right, you make it clearer and clearer just how far out in wacko land you are.
A wouldn't "approach" them at all. You just admitted that you do endorse those policies.
LOL well, as I don't endorse those things, that's hardly fooling people. Now, I certainly do approach them more closely than you would. But then, so did Ronald Reagan. Hell, so did Attila the Hun.
But keep it up. By demonstrating with every post your inability to distinguish between Communism and anything else that isn't on the extreme right, you make it clearer and clearer just how far out in wacko land you are.
A wouldn't "approach" them at all. You just admitted that you do endorse those policies.
Not at all. You expressed them in extreme terms. In those extreme terms, I do NOT endorse them. What you are demonstrating is your inability to distinguish between an extreme and a more moderate position; to you, anything to the left of your own extreme position is Communist.
That's absurd, of course. But keep it up. You're discrediting yourself very nicely.
Thread #3 on the same crap.
A wouldn't "approach" them at all. You just admitted that you do endorse those policies.
Not at all. You expressed them in extreme terms. In those extreme terms, I do NOT endorse them. What you are demonstrating is your inability to distinguish between an extreme and a more moderate position; to you, anything to the left of your own extreme position is Communist.
That's absurd, of course. But keep it up. You're discrediting yourself very nicely.
Can you describe how a moderate expropriation of wealth above a certain amount would work? A moderate nationalization of private industry above a certain size?
I've met a fair number of American politicians and observed a lot more and I've yet to see the first real socialist among them in my lifetime. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't really qualify.
There once were socialists in the US, but for the last 60 years or so they've been a completely fringe phenomenon.
I've met a fair number of American politicians and observed a lot more and I've yet to see the first real socialist among them in my lifetime. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't really qualify.
There once were socialists in the US, but for the last 60 years or so they've been a completely fringe phenomenon.
Exactly. In all fairness, now, Sanders might advocate real socialism if it were politically possible; then again, he might not. He might be more of a European-type "socialist." He's in the Senate, so it's hard to be sure.
I've met a fair number of American politicians and observed a lot more and I've yet to see the first real socialist among them in my lifetime. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't really qualify.
There once were socialists in the US, but for the last 60 years or so they've been a completely fringe phenomenon.
