19
   

John Birch Society

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
That people could be so frightened by a blank piece of paper is another reason to be glad that it is no longer "the good old days". Those good old days never existed. They're as imaginary as the people on that blank piece of paper.
ehBeth
 
  5  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'm very glad that I lived my life in FREEDOM


actually, as one reads your posts, it appears you have lived your life in fear, and continue to do so

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:13 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
The paranoia is not based in fighting communism. The entire nation fought communism.
Did the commies who were subpoenaed fight communism?

edgarblythe wrote:
The paranoia was singling out innocents to subject to witch trials.
A distinction you refuse to even consider. Hence, paranoia.
What reason have u to believe that any of them were INNOCENT ??
Tell me, and then I will CONSIDER it.
What is your evidence for me to consider?

Thay singled out people who were worthy of investigation,
the same way that that John Dillenger was singled out for robbery;
that 's what thay shoud have done, because thay were suspected of
having information bearing upon the communist menace.
Communism was at war against us.

What McCarthy did is to be PROUD OF; it was anti-Red.
I imagine that if the communist slaves in Europe had known of it,
thay 'd wish to encourage him and cheer McCarthy on !
The European communist slaves woud have said: "Go get them, Joe!!!"

Were u equally as sweet on the nazis, Ed ?

The fact that the commies hated Joe McCarthy and the HUAC
proves that their work was good to do.

There was no reason to coddle them.
Thay were a sickness in American society.





David


OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:15 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
David wrote:
In your vu, only crazy people feared communism ?
I'm guessing that that Edgar is saying is that people feared the antics of McCarty
(HUAC) could destroy the foundation af american democracy/freedom.
HOW, Dys?

I did not notice any foundation getting destroyed.





David
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You didn't even read any of the information I posted. You also ignored the Edward G Robinson post. You have no interest in the truth, only a kneejerk response to the danger of communism, without even knowing who or what you are fighting. I give up on you, because you don't want to know anything.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:20 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'm very glad that I lived my life in FREEDOM

actually, as one reads your posts, it appears you have
lived your life in fear, and continue to do so
Really? What do u claim that I "fear" now, Beth?
Will u reveal that?


Communism is dead; we won the Third World War.

In candor, I will admit that I certainly did fear the commies.
I knew what thay coud and woud do, if thay got the chance.
Accordingly, I lived my life in both freedom
and well justified fear of the commies.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:34 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
You didn't even read any of the information I posted.
Maybe I did not see it; my apologies, Ed.
I 'll look for it now, assuming that it is on this thread.





edgarblythe wrote:
You also ignored the Edward G Robinson post.
I did not ignore it; I read it.
I did not comment on it before; I will comment on it NOW:
all he had to do was to explain as u did; no big deal.
At least ostensibly: it is plausible, and no reason to blacklist him,
unless there was more than what u have revealed.
If there was more, then that coud have been brought to bear on his case.

All ANYONE had to do was COME CLEAN !!!
Thay preferred to cover-up for the commies.





edgarblythe wrote:
You have no interest in the truth, only a kneejerk response to the danger of communism,
That is better than no response at all.





edgarblythe wrote:
without even knowing who or what you are fighting.
I succeeded in turning in some commies,
including one who was going to infiltrate US Army Intelligence
and then defect to Red China with whatever American military secrets he coud gather.
I knew HIM, Ed.




edgarblythe wrote:
I give up on you, because you don't want to know anything.
U give up because your position is untenable, but u refuse to admit it.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:44 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Finally, McCarthy was asked on live television: "Have you no decency?"
In that moment, the USA became embarrassed and contrite.
McCarthy's power was broken. Not so, the damage he caused.
His methods and message became embedded in the psyche of
many Americans. Seeds of paranoia that sprout daily.
I remember that; the answer is that uncovering commies in our midst,
trying to root out sickness from within is very decent
.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:50 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
You didn't even read any of the information I posted.
I did not SEE IT, but I 've found it now.
There is a lot of stuff there; it will take a while to read and comment.




edgarblythe wrote:
You also ignored the Edward G Robinson post.
I have now commented on that: all he had to do was COME CLEAN,
and explain it, as u did, if that was all there was to it.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:14 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
That people could be so frightened by a blank piece of paper is another reason to be glad that it is no longer
"the good old days". Those good old days never existed. They're as imaginary as the people on that blank piece of paper.
There is NO reason to believe that his paper was blank; no evidence of that.

If u think there IS evidence of blankness, then please tell me what it IS.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:24 pm
In 1978 I had to take government in HS, my teacher was he said a John Birch member. He would constantly rag on the "commie-fags" and feminists.....I dont figure that would fly today.

Pitty.

edit, I should point out that the requirement to graduate was two classes in the same vein, he would always teach one and a liberal would always teach the other. It was fair and balanced.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:09 pm
this just popped up on twitter

@DanKennedy_NYC The biggest reward of being a private person is this delusion that the world would even care about what we're hiding.

love it
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:16 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Ed, in your post, u called this "information".
This is not information; it is a vague puff piece of very general opinion,
with no substantiating facts.

Its only an essay, probably written by an emotional schoolboy,
an ANONYMOUS schoolboy; I imagine that he is probably around 14 or 15 years old.
Very likely, this child was born many years after Joe McCarthy was in his grave,
but we don 't know for sure, because we have no hint, however slight, of who the author IS.


Ed, please note that NO ONE claims that the allegations in this piece are TRUE.

Your website explicitly rejects responsibility for it and says that it is below their standards.
Did u read your own link ?


This website apparently exists for school children to cheat by
purchasing essays that are assigned to them in school,
for which the website will do the research and the writing which
the child will then plagiarize; do u know what plagiarism is, Ed ?

It will indeed be his in that he paid for it, he owns it,
but it will be the result of the secret labor of others.

Even a letter to the editor has a signature, Ed; this "information"
of yours DOES NOT.

Is this how u get your information, Ed ?

My goodness! This is not evidence of anything.

Note, incidentally, that even the anonymous author of this essay
does not reveal how he came to know that the alleged piece
of paper was "BLANK" as he claims.
Was he there looking at it??
Did he see it thru a telescope??
Did it come to him in a dream ?

A lot of this is unhistorical nonsense; there was no "absolute panic".
I lived thru those times and I remember no "panic" absolute, nor otherwise.

Do u remember an "absolute panic", Ed??
People running, screaming, thru the streets?



David





http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/History:%20World/4898.htm
Throughout the early 1950's, the nation was deeply engrossed in fears of a Communist takeover. At a time when America's fears were at their very height, Joseph McCarthy, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin pushed America's fears to an extreme. As a ploy to get himself re-elected, and to make America hate Communism as much as he did, the Senator devised a devious scheme. McCarthy, while giving a speech, held up a piece of paper and exclaimed, "I have here a list of 57 known Communists who are currently employed by the U.S. State Department" (Fried, 89). A few days later, McCarthy raised the number of people on the list from 57 to 205.
The reaction to McCarthy's announcement was absolute panic.

Until that time, the nation had a sense of security.
Now all peace of mind was lost, and America wanted these people
that were on McCarthy's so called "Blacklist" (Fried, 65). So began a
long-term search by Congress to seek these individuals. One group
that was extensively looked at was Hollywood. By Joseph McCarthy
abusing his powers, he not only destroyed many people's lives, but
he also wronged the American public.
WHAT abuse of powers???? This is pure freedom of speech
that any citizen coud freely do.


To begin with, the type of person that Joe McCarthy was must be considered. McCarthy was a hard-line Republican who played along strict party lines. By all considerations, he was an extremist or a reactionary. By holding a piece of paper, and saying that the enemy who everyone feared was so close, McCarthy diminished all thoughts that America was truly safe. The actual piece of paper was blank; McCarthy had no writing on the paper at all. He knew that by telling the people of the U.S. that the enemy was so close, he could finally see a war erected against Communism. He simply used the people's ambitions and fears to make a mountain out of a molehill. Communism in America before McCarthy's debacle was simply a buzzword. Everyone knew about it, but no one ever talked about it. The first knowledge many American's had of Communism came from Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain Speech" (Matusow, 45). Churchill basically said in his speech that the Soviet Union was pushing forward a global Communist takeover. And Churchill also said that he believed, "We should not let such a force loose on the planet" (Matusow, 46). That was the first time many American eyes were opened to Communism, and McCarthy made sure it was not the last. The entire chaos that Senator McCarthy caused had become collectively known as "The Red Scare" (Feuerlicht, 34). McCarthy used this entire "Red Scare" idea to boost his hopes for re-election. But an elected official is supposed to be a representative of the people. All McCarthy did was abuse his power and pull the wool over the people's eyes. McCarthy did not work for the benefit of the people. He only worked for the benefit of himself.
Next, the people whose lives McCarthy destroyed must be looked at. In the immediate aftermath of McCarthy's speech came many accusations. America wanted the people that McCarthy said were on his list. But when asked for the list, McCarthy said he lost it, and he could not remember which individuals were on the list. But he said he did see some key Hollywood figures on it. That was when the focus shifted to all of Hollywood. If anyone thought that an actor or actress seemed suspicious, they would simply start gossip about them. Eventually, the special Congressional committee appointed to investigate the issue would hear of it. And when they did, they would bring the individual in question before Congress, and they would basically tear them apart. They would ask them about their lifestyles, their fellow employees, and their friends. And then they would determine if the individual in question were guilty or innocent. But it really made no difference if they were innocent or not. Once they were brought before Congress, their careers were basically ruined. Movie companies refused to hire them. They were afraid that the people would boycott any movies they made, if they hired "Communist sympathizers" (Matusow, 88). And when the accused did get jobs, the people did not want to go see "Dirty Communist bastards" (Fried, 67). All these actors and actresses worked for years to build their reputations, and now Senator McCarthy stepped on every single one of them.
Finally, the way the trials were conducted has to be looked into. When all these prestigious actors and actresses were brought before Congress, they did not receive a fair trial. Some individuals were brought before Congress with absolutely no evidence against them. Congress overstepped its boundaries by placing people they knew had nothing to do with Communism on the stand. All that Congress wanted to do was look busy. So when they had no leads on anyone, they made them up. When a witness did not exist, one mysteriously appeared. They called some people simply to get them to mention other people. What was actually going on was a giant loop. Nothing was getting done. All they were really doing was randomly picking people whose lives would be ruined. Most members of Congress knew it was a witch-hunt. That was when Arthur Miller came into the picture. Miller himself knew a lot of the people involved in the trials. He was once married to Marilyn Monroe, and he also directed a few notable films. Miller found a high level way of criticizing Congress. The Crucible was Miller's depiction of what was going on in America at the time. Miller wrote a play in which the Salem witch trials of the 1600's were brought to light. He directly compared the witch-hunts of the past, to the congressional proceedings of the present. It was a brilliant idea, until Congress called him in for questioning. During the trial, Miller made every attempt to criticize Congress and their handling of the proceedings. He was eventually jailed. Once again this is another example of how Joe McCarthy ruined the life of another innocent person. McCarthy had the entire nation in an uproar and all he had to say about it was "Vote McCarthy" (Fried, 104).
In summation, Joseph McCarthy ruined many lives and caused general panic in America. McCarthy was the type of person that would do whatever it took to get what he wanted. By all means he was an opportunist, and he just disregarded the aftermath of anything he did. The people who had their lives destroyed in this entire situation lost years of work, finances, family, and homes. Many night of sleep were lost over that
Single blank piece of paper. Many careers were also lost over that same piece of paper. And in McCarthy's mind, that piece of paper should have said "suckers". Only since McCarthy played the entire country for fools. It is amazing how simple gossip can become so much more. In most ways this situation was identical to what happened in Salem. Congress conducted a modern day witch-hunt. The entire nation was left shocked and scared. They had more fears of an atomic bomb being dropped by the Soviet Union now then they ever had before. In some ways, a bomb was dropped. McCarthy basically dropped his own bomb on the country when he held up that piece of paper.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:20 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
this just popped up on twitter

@DanKennedy_NYC The biggest reward of being a private person
is this delusion that the world would even care about what we're hiding.

love it
Well, I am a private person and I have gotten much bigger rewards that THAT.
U can believe him if u wanna.

U need a bridge ?





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:35 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The nazis and the commies were at war with us.
War is NOT a trivial matter, as all 3 of u tacitly imply.

You and I must be depending on different history books. As I remember it, the Nazis were at war with the US from 1943 to 1945. The Nazis were long gone when McCarthy headed the Committee on Un-American activities. As to the Commies, Congress never declared martial law as a result of the communist thread. That pretty much kills your argument. If you plead to have civil rights annulled because there's a war on, you better make sure there's actually a war on. And there wasn't -- not during the heyday of McCarthy.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 03:45 pm
@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The nazis and the commies were at war with us.
War is NOT a trivial matter, as all 3 of u tacitly imply.
Thomas wrote:
You and I must be depending on different history books. As I remember it, the Nazis were at war with the US from 1943 to 1945. The Nazis were long gone when McCarthy headed the Committee on Un-American activities.
The HUAC was created against the Axis Powers;
McCarthy was never head of HUAC, that I know of.
Obviously, the nazi threat ended in May of 1945, but the nazis
and the commies were allied from August 1939 until Operation Barbarosa
on June 22nd, 1941; (good thing for us). My point was that thay
were each at war with us, and therefore, it behooved us to take
each threat very seriously, until Christmas Eve of 1991.





Thomas wrote:
As to the Commies, Congress never declared martial law as a result of the communist thread.
That 's a good thing, inasmuch as Congress has no power to declare martial law.
If the Constitution were suspended, then by that act, Congress woud lose validity,
since the Constitution constitutes Congress; or Congress is the child of the Constitution.
There certainly was no need of martial law for anything that
either house of Congress did against internal communists.



Thomas wrote:
That pretty much kills your argument.
I don 't see how, Thomas. Do u deny that Congress has subpoena power?
That is the power that both Sen. McCarthy and the HUAC employed
against communist infiltration of American institutions.





Thomas wrote:
If you plead to have civil rights annulled because there's a war on
There was no annulment of rights, nor did I allege that there was,
but the factual war of the communists to take over the world
was the motivation for Congress to use its power of subpoena against
the communist enemy. Its not as if we did not KNOW that the
commies were waging war against us; that was the Third World War,
which ended on Christmas Eve of 1991.



Thomas wrote:
, you better make sure there's actually a war on.
We were sure; that was pretty obvious.




Thomas wrote:
And there wasn't -- not during the heyday of McCarthy.
It is your belief that the communists did NOT try to take over the world?
Thay betrayed Marx ?





David
dyslexia
 
  3  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 04:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
In an effort to be fair David, (something I rarely do) I'm quite sure there was indeed a problem re communist intentions in the USA. The problem, as I see it is that ultimately McCarthy's histrionics and demagoguery (as well as his apparent inability to remain sober) did more to devalue anti-communism than to help it.
btw David the subject of this thread is the John Birch Society, not Joe McCarthy.
Thomas
 
  3  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 05:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDavid wrote:
Do u deny that Congress has subpoena power?
That is the power that both Sen. McCarthy and the HUAC employed
against communist infiltration of American institutions.

I don't know that I do, but I'm sure that you should. After all, article 1 of the constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress, does not mention any power to subpoena at all. As a hardcore originalist, you should conclude that no such power was delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and that it therefore doesn't have it.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
but the factual war of the communists to take over the world
was the motivation for Congress to use its power of subpoena against
the communist enemy.

Does your constitutional theory extend to all congresses, or only to conservative ones? For example, take the war on poverty, explicitly declared during the Johnson administration. By your theory, could Gene McCarthy have started up a Congressional committee, subpoenad libertarians who protested the extension of the welfare state, and bullied them into naming names? Your logic certainly implies it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 05:37 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
In an effort to be fair David, (something I rarely do) I'm quite sure there was indeed a problem re communist intentions in the USA. The problem, as I see it is that ultimately McCarthy's histrionics and demagoguery (as well as his apparent inability to remain sober) did more to devalue anti-communism than to help it.
Well, that sounds interesting, Dys.
Can u point to anything in particular
that Joe McCarthy 's efforts injured the anti-communist war effort?

Did he cause us to have fewer battle tanks, or planes; something, anything ?





dyslexia wrote:
btw David the subject of this thread is the John Birch Society, not Joe McCarthy.
Yes, but u may have noticed that my thoughts qua the Senator were challenged.
I am not unwilling to explain them, when this is requested.

I am quite content to discuss the JBS; do u have something u 'd like to discuss about it ?





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 06:32 pm
@Thomas,
OmSigDavid wrote:
Do u deny that Congress has subpoena power?
That is the power that both Sen. McCarthy and the HUAC employed
against communist infiltration of American institutions.
Thomas wrote:
I don't know that I do, but I'm sure that you should.
After all, article 1 of the constitution, which enumerates the
powers of Congress, does not mention any power to subpoena at all.
As a hardcore originalist, you should conclude that no such power
was delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and that it therefore doesn't have it.
Congress was constitutionally delegated power:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . ." (Article 1 Section 8).
Congress has decided that it needs eyes and ears
to decide what laws to pass, ergo: the power to investigate,
attended by the power of subpoena.





OmSigDAVID wrote:
but the factual war of the communists to take over the world
was the motivation for Congress to use its power of subpoena against
the communist enemy.
Thomas wrote:
Does your constitutional theory extend to all congresses, or only to conservative ones?
The powers of Congress do not fluctuate.


Thomas wrote:
For example, take the war on poverty, explicitly declared during the Johnson administration.
Johnson had no authority to declare war, tho he did have authority to move
the Armed Forces and have them execute his military orders.
Johnson 's declaring war on poverty in a speech was a legal nullity,
tho Congress enacted some of his domestic programs, none of which
invoked the war power.






Thomas wrote:
By your theory, could Gene McCarthy have started up a Congressional committee,
subpoenad libertarians who protested the extension of the welfare state,
and bullied them into naming names? Your logic certainly implies it.
Bullied is not the right word, but I see no reason against such subpoenas.
If he had subpoenaed me, I 'd have just come clean
and answered his questions, without resentment.
No problem. Invite him to lunch, on the record.
If he asked with whom I discussed libertarianism,
I 'd tell him and maybe invite him to a discussion session; let him take movies.
I 'll smile and wave!





David
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » John Birch Society
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 03:32:38