Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The Continued Bashing of Senator Joseph McCarthy

Recently, I saw the film Good Night and Good Luck, a film that bashes Senator Joseph McCarthy. During his day, McCarthy was one of the biggest threats to liberals and Communists (same thing) and they still despise him for his work despite the overwhelming evidence showing that he was not only right, but didn’t go far enough. (Personally, I think the Communistic threat then and even now needs a Phoenix Program-like operation to contain it)

The film was about CBS (i.e., See, B.S.) broadcaster Ed Murrow’s bashing of McCarthy on his television program. Murrow claims “McCarthy is wrong 100% of the time.

Early in the film, Murrow and his Leftist cohorts snivel about taking a loyalty oath to hold their jobs. When I enlisted into the U.S. Army decades ago, I had no problem affirming my loyalty to my Country. But, for most liberals and definitely Communists, such an oath is like sunlight to a vampire.
During the film, McCarthy (via of recorded broadcasts from the era) mentions the ACLU as being a subversive organization. Again, McCarthy was being kind. Murrow, however, claims that the ACLU was never listed as a subversive organization. Murrow (and the writers of the film) should have checked their facts. As early as 1931, a report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated;
The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists. (1)
The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, wrote;
“I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
While this particular House report doesn’t flat-out call the ACLU a subversive organization, a thinking person (which of course rules out any liberal) would come to that conclusion.
The film bashed McCarthy over his investigation of Annie Lee Moss, an elderly colored woman who worked with classified messages for the Pentagon. The woman lost her when an FBI informant testified that Moss was a member of the Communist party. When Moss testified before the Senate, she denied being a member. Her supporters claimed McCarthy confused her with another Annie Moss who lived at a different address. Moss got her job back in 1954.

Murrow made Moss a hero in his broadcasts, citing her as evidence that McCarthy was persecuting innocent people. In September of 1958 however, the Subversive Activities Control Board reported that membership records from the Communist Party showed that an Annie Moss, who lived at the same address as the Annie Moss investigated by McCarthy was a Communist in the 1940’s.
Murrow and his cohorts expressed glee when they heard that McCarthy was being investigated by the Army. What the film didn’t point out was that the Army investigation wasn’t about any of McCarthy’s claims being untrue, it was over McCarthy and his staff attempting to get preferential treatment for G. David Schine, one of the Committee’s consultants, who had been drafted. The hearing eventually found that McCarthy was completely innocent and that it was McCarthy’s chief counsel Roy Cohn who attempted to influence the Army. On an interesting note, the Army’s charges came eight months after the alleged incident and after McCarthy announced that he planned to subpoena several members of the Army Loyalty and Screening board. Another interesting note is that Schine was 26 and nearly too old to be drafted. Apparently, the Army didn’t like McCarthy ferreting out communists in its organization.
The film also trumpeted McCarthy’s censure by the senate. The movie didn’t see fit to reveal why he was censured, allowing the audience to think it was because of McCarthy’s actions during the hearings. In actuality, McCarthy was censured for not appearing before the senate to testify after being invited to. That’s invited, not subpoenaed. Given the way he’d been trashed by them, I probably wouldn’t have appeared before them either.
At the end of the film, I was expecting to see updated information about what followed the hearings and what has been revealed in recently released documents like the Venona transcripts that shows there was (and I would say that more than likely there still is) infiltration of government agencies by communists and their agents.
I could get into other aspects of the McCarthy hearings and the “McCarthy Era”. Perhaps I will later. For now my main point is that while McCarthy wasn’t perfect, he tried to the best he could with what and who he had. He also had the demoncrats, the Army and even theRepublican president working against him.

The ACLU’s Shocking Legacy, 5 Aug 2005, www.WorldNetDaily.com, Alan Sears
The New American Magazine, Vol. 12, #18, 2 Sept 1996, The Real McCarthy Record


Anonymous Hidden Nook said...

LOL...wow, never thought I would see a proud black conservative in the blogosphere (okay, there are more of them, but was surprised to see this was the first blog I ran into today).

Well, I know you are a busy person, but you may be interested in these blog sites as they do fit your conservative views.

Site: GOP Bloggers and Stop the ACLU. Have fun!

Anonymous Jeffersonish said...

I didn't check the date this blog was written, but I am guesing it was closer to the release date of the movie than today. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to respond to your bashing of the movie.

You see, I watched the movie again to refresh my memory, having last seen it at the theatre. The reason I re-watched it was because of the parallel I saw to the very recent passage of a bill giving the telecoms immunity for their actions. The common thread here being a lack of respect for the Bill of Rights. Both McCarthy and Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and they're both doing their best to circumvent it.

McCarthy disregarded the first amendment right to associate and Bush, with Congress' help is disregarding the fourth.

You see, In America, I'm supposed to have the right to believe whatever I please and associate with others who are like-minded, even communists.

There is also no reason one can't be subversive. Subversive just means that you're trying to affact change. In that regard, I am subversive because I am politically active trying to affect change. I want to end high taxes and the invastion of privacy that goes with it when collected by the IRS. I want the government to get a warrant before they do any sort of search. In the case of an emergency regarding national security, I don't mind if the warrant is obtained after the fact. I want the government to stop putting people in jail for trying to get through cancer treatments using medicinal marijuana. I want Washington D.C. and every city in the country to respect the full breadth of the second amendment (even after the Heller decision, D.C. plans on the toughest gun control laws in the country). I want to leave by children ALL my estate, not just that part the government thinks is reasonable. And I am being as subversive as I can in trying to affect all of these things.

You see, it wasn't the fact that McCarthy was going after communists that gave him a bad name. Few in this country, especially in the 50's had any love for communism. Very many however saw the way he was destroying the lives of people based on things like past affiliations and even the affiliations of loved ones. They were destroyed for having examined communism despite whatever conclusions they might have come to after such an examination.

I went to a John Birch Society meeting not long ago because I was curious about them. I would hate for people to think that just because I attended a meeting, that I agreed with everything they have to say. I don't. I actually sat through a presentation given by the editor of The New American and was unimpressed.

And lets be clear about communism. There is nothing wrong with it. Before you go off the handle thinking you've figured out my objection to your article, know this. I am about as free-market and anti-facist as they come. What I mean by my statement is this...

Communism, the idea of people living communally where all share in the benefits equally is something people should be free to do. Marxism on the other hand -- the idea that communal living should be forced on everyone in society, not the tiny group of people who want to, is facism and should be avoided at all cost. I tell people I know who are more socialistic and even communistic, if they think it is such a great idea, start a commune, demonstrate its superiority, and watch people flock to it.

One other point I would like to make is this... "Oaths are useless except as tools to control the weak-minded or to create a legally binding obligation." In the case of the CBS non-communist oath, it is protected by the first amendment too. Depending on how it was worded, it may or may not have been a good thing, thus protecting the company from negative publicity. Unfortunately, when it becomes known that a news organization is more interested in protecting their profits than reporting news stories despite the potential for loss of revenue, that can reverse a lot of the benefit. My ideal news show would be co-anchored by someone with strong right political views and another with strong left views, each armed with investigators and each committed to disclosing anything they find to the other much like adversarial attorneys must do in a criminal case so the truth may be determined and justice may prevail.

To be sure, I don't like it when Hollywood presents a movie based on actual events and then takes great artistic license to dramatize. As you have so clearly illustrated, even when the message is a good one, the message gets diluted when people call them on the facts. Then again, to be fair, unless I am forgetting one, your criticisms were all of the nature of misleading by omission vs. misstating the facts.

In summary, I guess I would say, the way to beat communism is to work hard to show that free-market capitalism is superior.

Anonymous Robot said...

From Robot

Senator Joe McCarthy was an American hero. Despite the efforts of Communists and their sympathizers (I personally neither see nor make any distinction between the two) McCarthy tried to weed out Communist agents who were working for the U.S. Government. While few people in the 50’s supported Communism, many of the ones who did worked for the U.S. government and some were even members of Congress.

As has been discovered due to the release of Soviet records and the release of the Venona Transcripts, the U.S. Government was (and still is) riddled with Communist agents. These agents passed on information to the Soviets and help propagandize the people of the U.S. into supporting Soviet and Communist agendas.

The right to freedom of speech and association doesn’t apply to treason and obviously, there is no right to subversion. Likewise, if a person working for the U.S. Government is found to be associating with the Klan or National SOCIALIST Party, they would also be investigated and removed. Subversion isn’t just about “effecting change” it’s undermining, ruining or corrupting a country.

The Senate Internal Security Sub-committee didn’t investigate people for reading a book about Communism, they were investigated because they were suspected of being Communist agents.

You claim Communism is people living communally and sharing benefits equally. Translated: you mean lazy, non-productive people loaf off of people who produce and take the necessary risks to start businesses and provide for themselves. Of course, people who would otherwise consider being a producer would be discouraged from doing so if the fruits of their labor are going to be confiscated and given to the lazy.

Communism, Marxism, Socialism, etc., are basically the same them thing with slight variations to their degree of control over their citizens. Basically all they do is ensure everyone, with the exception of Party officials and other selected people are equally miserable.

You also repeat the slanderous claims that McCarthy was a drunk. Odd, if McCarthy was as drunk as his attackers claim, it would have been obvious during the hours of testimony he gave before the Senate.

I’m sure McCarthy was didn’t drink nearly as much as Ted Kennedy and no one has ever drowned because of McCarthy’s drinking.

McCarthy was an American hero and it is too bad he was unable to complete his job due to the Communists and their sympathizers working in our government,



Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to tell you this buddy but Joe McCarthy was a racist and he wouldn't have liked you because of your skin color. Matter of fact he would probably have hauled you in front of his Commission for Anti-American Activities. I can't help but think that has to be a satirical blog because no one can truly be that damn stupid.

Blogger Cain said...

Draw another card. The race card is played out.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home