19
   

John Birch Society

 
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:16 pm
@ernie1241,
Let's not forget that McCarthy helped the Nazis as well.
0 Replies
 
ernie1241
 
  2  
Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David wrote:
Quote:
The vague generality with which u speak of McCarthy 's alleged going 'after the innocent' leaves me in a position of replyin with vague generality. I much prefer to be specific.


That's a good idea. I have the entire FBI Security Index/Detention of Communists file (54,000 pages). The Security Index was intended to track all known and suspected CP members, CP sympathizers, CP-front members, or others who were thought to be a security risk to our country.

At NO time during the 1950's, did the FBI's Security Index match the charges made by Sen. McCarthy with respect to his claims about the number of "Communists" supposedly working inside the U.S. Government.

One of our nation’s foremost scholars about the McCarthy period (Dr. John Earl Haynes) has written several articles which compare McCarthy’s assertions to newly available data including, for example, the Venona papers and material in KGB archives. Dr. Haynes' research also falsifies the claims made by Sen. McCarthy.

See for example:

(1) Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
(2) Exchange with Arthur Herman and Venona book talk
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html

FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere, supervised the investigations of some of the biggest espionage cases of the cold war, including those of the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby plus he was intimately involved, in conjunction with Meredith Knox Gardner of the Army Security Agency, in using deciphered Soviet cables to build espionage cases.

Lamphere wrote on pages 136-137 of his 1968 book The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent's Story that:
"Senator McCarthy's crusade which was to last for the next several years, was always anathema to me. McCarthy’s approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists…McCarthy's star chamber proceedings, his lies and overstatements hurt our counterintelligence efforts."
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:30 pm
In 1951, with the U.S. Congress now under Democratic control, HUAC launched a second investigation of Hollywood and Communism. As actor Larry Parks said when called before the panel,
Don't present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the mud to be an informer. For what purpose? I don't think it is a choice at all. I don't think this is really sportsmanlike. I don't think this is American. I don't think this is American justice.

For lists of The Hollywood Ten, Red Channels and more, follow this link:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist#The_Hollywood_Ten


Some of those listed on Red Channels include Dashiell Hammett, Leonard Bernstein, Artie Shaw, Burgess Meredith . . . more
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:17 pm
@ernie1241,
WELCOME, to the forum, Ernie!

I must say that u have quoted some very respectable sources,
some extremely respectable sources, altho some of your quotations
were not documented.
You failed to cite the source of some of your quotes.

If your quotes are accurate, then I may have been mistaken
as to the quality of his effect in the war against communism.
If your quotes r accurate, then I may be forced inexorably to the conclusion
that America woud have been better off without Sen. McCarthy's contribution.

Thanks for posting !





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:27 pm

Upon reflection, I seem to recall, very vaguely, that Herb Philbrick
DID generate an anti-McCarthy statement, as u have indicated.
I met Herb Philbrick a few times, but we never discussed McCarthy.

I seem to remember reading that in I Led 3 Lives.
I had forgotten that.

Ernie is causing me to change my mind,
in the face of convincing evidence.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:36 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

In 1951, with the U.S. Congress now under Democratic control, HUAC launched a second investigation of Hollywood and Communism. As actor Larry Parks said when called before the panel,
Don't present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the mud to be an informer. For what purpose? I don't think it is a choice at all. I don't think this is really sportsmanlike. I don't think this is American. I don't think this is American justice.
It seems to me that, as a practical matter, co-operation
with the Committee was appropriate; i.e., if the named persons did innocuous things, then say so.

If someone accurately quoted ME
to a committee of Congress, I 'd have no objection.





David
plainoldme
 
  1  
Wed 7 Apr, 2010 08:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
There are people who are still hated for "co-operating" with the Committee by naming names. I saw one such name on Red Channels. I always think of this person with disgust.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Wed 7 Apr, 2010 09:07 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
There are people who are still hated for "co-operating" with the Committee by naming names.
I saw one such name on Red Channels. I always think of this person with disgust.
Is THAT the operative criterion, Plain ?
When Brown v. Board of Ed came from the USSC,
many, many Southerners HATED it and the Warren Ct.
Thay hated integration with blacks. The idea was loathsome;
do u believe that hatred makes them right ??


The Germans in the 3rd Reich HATED the Jews;
in your opinion,
did that hatred justify how thay treated the Jews ?

Surely, the Japs HATED surrendering to General MacArthur
and having him occupy their homeland, ruling it, outranking their Emperor.
In your opinion,
does that mean that thay shoud have fought
to the last grandmother instead of surrender, because of the hatred ?





plainoldme
 
  1  
Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Those Southerners that hated integration were right wingers, conservatives whose fathers and grandfathers extended slavery into the 1950s through small courts that sentenced young black men, grabbed off the streets, and sentenced for loitering . . . sentences that sometimes turned either into life imprisonment or death.

The Germans that hated the Jews were right wingers, conservatives.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:15 pm
The Tea Parties: Built on Fear, Violence and Race Resentment
By Christopher Deis, AlterNet
Posted on April 8, 2010, Printed on April 8, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146190/

I used to be able to watch Glenn Beck and shake my head at his antics. I would listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News for their entertainment value as theaters of the absurd. I would laugh at the television as Sarah Palin struggled through the easiest of public policy questions. The Tea Party gatherings were comedy gold as one part failed agitprop and one part Village People reunion"fully equipped with protesters dressed in Revolutionary War regalia, carrying misspelled signs, and reciting half-cooked political slogans to a backdrop of bad country music.

The lunatic fringe had taken over the Republican Party. It was high comedy.

Since the passage of the health care bill matters have taken an ugly and horrible turn. Congress members have been spat upon and assaulted by Tea Party protesters. Bricks have been thrown through the windows of representatives who voted for health care reform. Racial and homophobic slurs such as “nigger” and “faggot” have been hurled by Tea Party protesters at members of Congress. A casket was left on the lawn of Representative Russ Carnahan. Right-wing vigilantes targeting Tom Perriello instead accidentally cut the gas main of his brother’s home.

Members of Congress who voted for health care reform are seeking police protection for fear of their safety. In what is ostensibly the most advanced democracy in the world, political thuggery is escalating into political violence as the Tea Party right-wing populists vent their rage and frustration. Having failed to effect policy through normal politics, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is now pursuing extraordinary means to see their political agenda served.

The behavior of the Tea Partiers"and the unwillingness of the Republican Party leadership to disavow them"is evocative of my favorite episode of the classic television series "The Twilight Zone." In "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street,” seemingly nice, polite, good citizens and neighbors turn on each other in fits of rage and paranoia after a power outage. Rumors spread, people are shot, and a community is left in ruins after extraterrestrial invaders use fear to amplify the latent ugliness that lies within us all. The moral of the story: we are the monsters, every one of us, and we can be easily pushed into the worst of behavior by our own weaknesses and the provocations of others.

Sadly, after watching the poor behavior, bigotry, and lack of civility on display by the Tea Party and their confederates, the joke is now clearly over.

There has been a great deal of hand-wringing by the media over the Tea Party phenomenon. Where did this movement come from? How did our politics become so dysfunctional? What do they want? For fear of using too broad a brush, many pundits have been afraid to state the obvious about the right-wing, anti-Obama, Tea Party movement. I will dare say what some have been afraid to: Racism and xenophobia have been central to the Tea Party movement from its very inception. While not all of them are racists, they swim in a sea of white racial resentment. And based upon the behavior witnessed at the Washington Tea Party gathering where John Lewis and others were threatened with violence, the Tea Party and its leadership give aid and comfort to the bigots in their midst, whether consciously or subconsciously.

The violent outbursts surrounding the health care bill, while surprising, were not unpredictable. Moreover, the racism and threats of political violence against members of Congress both spring forth from the same mean-spirited divisiveness that has typified American politics since (at least) the 1980s. The brandishing of firearms at Tea Party rallies, and the repeated references to uprisings and revolution at those events were more than hints at a propensity toward violent behavior; they were a clear sign of this movement’s willingness to surrender to its most base impulses.

For example, the demonization of “liberals” by the conservative talk radio and media establishment (in which eliminationist rhetoric suggesting that liberals are a cancer to be destroyed is the norm) has legitimized Tea Party political thuggery. Likewise, the unruly behavior and violence at health care townhall meetings are another symptom of a civic culture in serious decline. In perhaps the most visually stunning episode in recent memory, the heckling and near assault by Tea Party protesters of a man suffering from Parkinson’s disease illustrated in stark terms a profound lack of decency on the part of the populist right-wing. The hostility and lack of civic virtue on display at these events are not separate and apart from racism and prejudice. Rather, they are parallel and intersecting cousins to one another.

Lest we forget: McCain and Palin’s appeals to “the real America" during the 2008 presidential campaign were echoes of a political strategy that is largely based upon inflaming social, racial and economic divides. In turn, this fear and anxiety is clearly manifest by the Tea Party and the populist Right’s repeated appeals to save “our America.”

As recent surveys have revealed, the America the Tea Party yearns for looks like them: it is predominantly and overwhelmingly homogeneous and white. It is conservative. It is Republican. It is Christian. And it is straight. The predictions that America will be a majority minority nation by 2050 terrify the Republican base and the Tea Partiers. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the election of Barack Obama while certainly a referendum on the Bush administration and the Republican Party can also be seen as a signal of a changing America. Although not yet “post-racial” (and it is debatable if America will ever move beyond race as a central and defining social category) America is certainly moving toward a different place demographically than where it was 40 years ago.

In stoking these anxieties for political and material gain, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News (among others) expound narratives centered upon a premise that America’s first black president is somehow "un-American."

To point: On a daily basis Obama is smeared by conservative media darlings such as Glenn Beck as the illegitimate ruler of a tyrannical state. In these performances, Beck makes a series of key rhetorical moves that demand exploration as we look at the ways in which racial resentment has become one of the primary motivations for anti-Obama animus.

In Beck’s script, you, the viewer, are a patriot. It is us versus them. Political disputes are cast in apocalyptic tones. The Republic is imperiled unless “you” stand against some enemy.

“We” have to defend the Constitution against “those people.” Democrats are villains to be eliminated. It is only through the efforts of patriotic Americans (read: the Tea Parties and other right-wing populist groups) that power can be returned to the people.

One must note how dangerously close Beck’s narrative hews to sedition: he actively assaults Obama as illegitimate and then appeals to his audience to engage in acts of “resistance.” But somehow this is not treasonous speech. In Beck’s logic, this is loyalty to the Constitution. In fact, in the eyes of the Birthers and many of the Tea Partiers, Obama is not eligible to be president because “he was not born here.” Alternatively, he is a secret Muslim, a Manchurian candidate, and socialist who will destroy America from within.

The deep ugliness and bigotry on display here is centered on a basic idea: Obama is not really one of “us.” He, because of his race, his personhood, and his color can never be a “real American.” For the Tea Party and right-wing populists, Obama is not fit to rule because as a person of color he is a perpetual outsider and racial Other.

Returning to the seeds planted by Glenn Beck, the belief that President Obama is illegitimate has a secondary and perhaps even more dangerous implication. Because Obama is not really eligible to be president, his office is not worthy of respect. Obama’s presidency is itself illegitimate. By extension, the State is not worthy of respect or loyalty from its citizens.

For example, in the debate around health care reform we have seen anachronistic phrases such as states' rights, nullification and intercession batted about by the right-wing and the Tea Parties as legitimate rationales for citizens and local governments to “resist” federal authority. The rhetoric of the Republicans and the Tea Party in response to Obama’s efforts to pass health care reform is eerily reminiscent of that used by opponents of the civil rights movement.

Not surprisingly, the right-wing media and the Republican Party are seemingly immune from accepting the fact that racist elements are operating in the Tea Party movement. Just as they have reframed language in a disturbing type of Orwellian “newspeak” (in which, for example, according to Glenn Beck, progressives are now “fascists” and Hitler was really a “liberal progressive") the obvious signals to white racism at the Tea Party events are dismissed or minimized as irrelevant or non-existent. Predictably, those who call attention to the use of racially incendiary language, signs and posters that speak to the worst stereotypes of Obama as an “African” or “witchdoctor,” and caricatures of the president as a racial terrorist in the guise of Adolf Hitler, are overly sensitive, and/or are playing the omnipresent and devious “race card.”

The few people of color at these events are trotted out like mascots who work to immunize the Tea Party from charges of racism. The black and brown faces of the right-wing also serve as fetishes that legitimize any rhetoric, however racist, xenophobic or bigoted by the conservative establishment or its followers. See Michael Steele’s excuse-making for the racist behavior of the Tea Party. In the extreme, conservatives believe themselves to be “colorblind” by definition. In this twisted understanding of American politics and society, it is in reality white men during the age of Obama who are the most aggrieved victims of some imagined type of reverse racism as they suffer under the jackboots of Jim Crow 2.0.

A quick survey of Fox News, the Republican establishment, or the right-wing blogosphere reveals a similar meme about the racist happenings at the Washington anti-health care rally: There were no real racists at the event; if racist language was used it was because the Tea Partiers were provoked and angry; Democrats are the real racists and likely planted agent provocateurs among the crowd; Barack Obama and the Democrats want the Tea Party to be violent and if violence comes it was duly provoked; and my favorite -- we didn’t hear any racial or homophobic language so it could not have possibly happened because conservatives and the Tea Party are incapable of such things.

In a testament to the durability and power of the right-wing media establishment, this self-contained world operates within its own bubble. It enables a willful myopia that is incapable of acknowledging and confronting racism even where obvious. While superficially unrelated to issues of race and justice, the conservative media bubble also enables a set of beliefs about social reality more generally that are patently and demonstrably untrue: Death panels will come into being if the health care bill is passed; Obama is foreign-born and not eligible to be president; Obama is a socialist; he is doing many things that Hitler did; ACORN stole the election for Obama; Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda and September 11th; And weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. This haze nourishes the toxic political environment in which Tea Party racism finds safe harbor.

In these trying times, this bubble must be burst if we are to find common ground in a community of shared political interests. However, as reinforced by the conservative media apparatus, this is a very difficult wall to tear down.

Where Do We Go From Here?

A healthy democracy rests upon a responsible media, a responsible public, and responsible political parties. These three pillars of American democracy have all in some part failed as evidenced by the violent and racist high-jinks of the Tea Party movement both before and after the vote on health care reform. In the worst examples, the conservative media have encouraged the fear-mongering, anger and violence of the Tea Party movement. The Republican Party has failed to condemn the racism and violence of their populist wing. Instead they have made excuses for their excesses as “the reasonable actions of upset people.” The Tea Party public has failed to the degree that they have not been given reasonable and accurate information by the conservative media, information that they can in turn use to make reasoned decisions about health care. All three have failed the test of good citizenship and civic virtue.

Tragically, many of the fears driving the Tea Party movement are shared by most Americans. The United States’ economy is seemingly broken. Corporate power runs amok and unchecked. There is a crisis in faith in our government. We live in a world in which America’s preeminence is rapidly declining. Ultimately, the social contract between citizens and the State is seemingly bent if not broken--the Great Recession has exposed that the American civil religion of upward mobility, job security and economic prosperity is a cruel lie. Instead of coming together in these trying times, we are being driven apart.

Worse yet, the Tea Party uprising is being heralded by leading thinkers as an example of “people power” or a revitalization of the best radicalism of the 1960s"just differently rooted in the middle America, Walmart crowd. If history tells us anything, it is that in times of economic tumult race and racial resentment come to trump mutual class interests. In keeping with this lesson, the sad reality of the Tea Party movement is that while its members imagine that they are speaking truth to power, in many ways they are being manipulated, motivated and funded by the very same economic forces that are exploiting them in the global economy.

Where are the adults in the room who will explain this to the Tea Party populists? When will responsible Republicans stand up and demand moderation and reason? Will someone put their hand on the shoulders of the Becks, Limbaughs, Hannitys, Palins, and O’Reillys of the world and tell them that enough is enough?

All of the Tea Partiers are not racists. To suggest as much would be unfair and imprecise. Nevertheless, in the aggregate they have dropped their masks and are showing the American people who they have always been. Racism is their ether. Fear of change is their drug. Bad behavior and violence seem to be increasingly their modus operandi. They are quite likely not bad people per se. But, we acquire the qualities of our deeds. We are also colored by the actions of those whom we claim as allies.

By standing mute while racism, hostility, and incivility run rampant in their midst they are racist by virtue of accommodation, encouragement, and agreement.

The choice is theirs. The good folk in the Tea Party movement can choose to stand up and say “Not in my name.” Or they can stand mute and be judged by the deeds of their compatriots. I do hope they do the former.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:23 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Those Southerners that hated integration were right wingers, conservatives whose fathers and grandfathers extended slavery into the 1950s through small courts that sentenced young black men, grabbed off the streets, and sentenced for loitering . . . sentences that sometimes turned either into life imprisonment or death.
U are CHANGING the subject from hatred
to what u claim that conservatives have done.


U wrote:
plainoldme wrote:
There are people who are still hated for "co-operating" with the Committee by naming names.
I saw one such name on Red Channels. I always think of this person with disgust.
In other words, according to Plain,
something is right or rong depending on whether others HATE it or think of it with disgust.
In refuting your argument, Plain,
I point out that the Axis Powers hated things too; did their hatred make those things rong ??


plainoldme wrote:
The Germans that hated the Jews were right wingers, conservatives.
I DON 'T think so;
WHAT do u claim that thay conserved ??

I don 't see that thay conserved anything.


I think that nazis were DEVIANT, the opposite of conservative. Thay were collectivist-authoritarians.





David
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:28 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
American conservatives look deviant!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Conservatives do not conserve things! They destroy things. How many conservatives are environmentalists? Well, there are a few fundamentalists pastors who have promoted environmentalism as it honors God's creations, but, the industrialists are destroying the world and the Republicans take no personal responsibility for preserving anything.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 02:40 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Conservatives do not conserve things!
That is the same as saying that there are no conservatives.




David
plainoldme
 
  2  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 11:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Illogical, like most of your arguments.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 11:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
So, what is your tactic? You use some of the strangest speech patterns. You always take a statement and skew it by answering with something completely unrelated. Frankly, it is hard to tell whether you are senile or whether you think you are clever.

I quoted actor Larry Parks and you answered that co-operation with HUAC would have been practical and rambled on about how pleased you would be to be quoted correctly.

Non sequitur.

I answered that there are people who are still hated for "co-operating" with HUAC . . . which is a direct answer to what you might think is a diversionary tactic . . .but . . . which could be either childishness . . . or senility.

Your response at least had something to do, if only obliquely, to my co-operating remark. You said that southerners hated Brown v. Brd of Educ at Topeka and asked a really inane question.

Most of it was a non sequitur.

You asked me: do u believe that hatred makes them right ??

Hey! The hatred of those CONSERVATIVE southerners is the hatred you feel toward liberals. (If you were ever honest, you would probably admit that you, too, hate Blacks.)

American conservatism is a philosophy of hatred.

----------------

My next response was a paraphrase of Douglas Blackmon's Slavery By Another Name.

Then you fell into what looks like complete madness: In other words, according to Plain,
something is right or rong depending on whether others HATE it or think of it with disgust.

Non sequitur.

You speak of having been an attorney but several people do not believe that. Apparently, you have been taken to task for misinterpreting the law. I don't see that you argue like an attorney.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 9 Apr, 2010 11:34 pm
@plainoldme,
Conservation has always been a liberal activity.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sat 10 Apr, 2010 05:18 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Illogical, like most of your arguments.
Plain, it is not that most of my arguments r illogical;
it is that you are unusually limited in your mental abilities,
and therefore have difficulty in understanding them
(either that, or u fail to consider them for a length of time
that is sufficient to engender understanding).


(This may appear ad hominem, but it is only dispassionate, objective analysis.)

I 'll get back to u.





David
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Sat 10 Apr, 2010 08:28 pm
Hello plainoldme, take it from me, trying to make sense out of David is a useless endeavour. Apparently David is smarter than everyone and if you don't believe me, just ask David. He/she doesn't clutter up the thinking process by entertaining the idea he could possibly learn anything. If you have teenagers, you will know what I mean. But just between you and me, some of his stuff is unwittingly "laugh out loud" funny. I digress, that was unkind and a little like being proud when you outsmart an 8-year old....not becoming.....sorry.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » John Birch Society
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 02:05:08