Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why so serious?
On page 65, Ann quotes McCarthy thusly, referencing Buckley and Bozell as the quote source:
"I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists: I may be wrong. that is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly...It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health."
For my Wiki research subject, I chose William Remington. Now THIS should make you sad:
William Walter Remington (October 25, 1917 November 24, 1954) was an economist employed in various federal government positions until his career was interrupted by accusations of espionage made by the Soviet spy and defector Elizabeth Bentley. He was convicted of perjury in connection with these charges in 1953, and murdered in prison in 1954. His death has been cited as one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism.[2]
I fascinated that both you and PC seem enamoured of the same heresay McCarthy (Coulter?) quote, where he admits he's an idiot that casts a broad net, and catches....NOTHING!
At any rate, Wiki, as I said, is a somewhat disingenuous source, but like PoliticalChick, its cheap and easy. Even it makes the point that William Remmington was being investigated long before McCarthy began his witch-hunt:
Acting on Bentley's information, the FBI began a secret surveillance of Remington in late 1945.
McCarthy found nothing.
I don't agree. He found a loyalty risk, which was exactly what he was looking for. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't claim originality.
I wasn't aware PC quoted that bit already, but I'm fascinated that Wiki reports Remington's death as "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism."
OT Trivia: Which US Senator introduced a bill in 1954 that would have outlawed the Communist Party? (Hint: he was a Democrat.)
I fascinated that both you and PC seem enamoured of the same heresay McCarthy (Coulter?) quote, where he admits he's an idiot that casts a broad net, and catches....NOTHING!
At any rate, Wiki, as I said, is a somewhat disingenuous source, but like PoliticalChick, its cheap and easy. Even it makes the point that William Remmington was being investigated long before McCarthy began his witch-hunt:
McCarthy found nothing.
I don't agree. He found a loyalty risk, which was exactly what he was looking for. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't claim originality.
I wasn't aware PC quoted that bit already, but I'm fascinated that Wiki reports Remington's death as "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism."
OT Trivia: Which US Senator introduced a bill in 1954 that would have outlawed the Communist Party? (Hint: he was a Democrat.)
Wiki isn't really a source that I expect to find the most unbias information: Thus the "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." My question is what were the others?
Well then, you think McCarthy found a "loyalty risk." So now we're reduced to playing semantical footsie?
WTF is "LOYALTY RISK?"
His whole gig was identifying loyalty risks who were working for the government. It is interesting to note, too, that he refused to name names outside of closed session, until compelled to do so by the democrats.
Am I the only person to see the irony that PC is defending a guy and his ideology that is probably as close to Communism as anything that has ever been part of the American political landscape?
Communists who attempted to give aid and comfort to a blood-soaked ideology?
He ruined no innocent lives.
So you believe people in the US should not be allowed to follow their own political ideology.
No innocent lives? You're kidding right?
Am I the only person to see the irony that PC is defending a guy and his ideology that is probably as close to Communism as anything that has ever been part of the American political landscape?
If you really and truly think this is why he came under attack, you're sadly mistaken. I also have to question if you're a liberal and authoritarian as a Conservative would understand that the real reason McCarthy came under attack is that he attempted to circumvent the criminal system, criminalize the 5th Ammendment, and add strong authoritative powers to the Federal Government that constituted a threat to the liberty of every man woman and child in the USA.
That isn't an over statement. If McCarthy's actions had gained long term support imagine just how much abuse the current Democratic controlled Senate and House could hand out to their political opponents.
There's a reason that McCarthy's actions are villified. Namely, even if he found a few Communists (and even a blind squirrel finds a nut if they look hard enough), he violated our long standing traditions and notions of justice to do so.
People that support McCarthyism ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES and have no room to claim to be so. Supporting un-Constitutional expansions of power at the Federal level make you a neocon.
"...the real reason McCarthy came under attack is that he attempted to circumvent the criminal system, criminalize the 5th Ammendment, and add strong authoritative powers to the Federal Government..."
Instead of vague jargon of the left, please, if you can, show exactly what it is that Senator McCarthy did that you find objectionable.
No babble.
Specifics.
I find Senator McCarthy's illicit use of his seat in the United States Senate to name and vilify ordinary Americans with little, or scant, evidence to be extremely objectionable.
And that's the bottom line, right there.
That number? 0
Conservatives can try to re-write history all they want, but McCarthy earned his rightful spot as a shameless demagogue who ruthlessly trashed innocent people to propel his own political career. His "list" consisted of a bizarre compilations of names that were derived out of hearsay, rumors, and the most scant of evidence. McCarthy was never interested in the American concept of justice or due process.
My 90+ year old grandmother (who is no liberal, believe me), had an interesting theory about McCarthy's meteoric fall. She said that television is what did him in. According to her, prior to the Army hearings, McCarthy was principally broadcast on the radio. People heard "Tailgunner Joe" and made him out, in their minds, to be this noble crusader against communism. However, the Army/McCarthy hearings were broadcasts and everyone got to see McCarthy for what he was a "hissin' possum" (the words of my grandmother).
Of course, if there were any merit to the claims that McCarthy was something more than a drunk opportunist, then the GOP would embrace him as a hero, as opposed to shunning him.
McCarthy's fall came at a flash at an almost Hollywood-esque dialogue from Joseph N. Welch, head council for the United States Army.
From the bold, willowy beauty, herself:
"Among the Soviet operatives who had been in government jobs and named by McCarthy were T.A. Bisson, Mary Jane Keeney, Cedric Belfrage, Solomon Adler, Franz Neumann, Leonard Mins, Gustavo Duran, and William Remington (later killed with a bar of soap in prison by a patriotic inmate)." [Ann Coulter Treason, pp 59-60]
His whole gig was identifying loyalty risks who were working for the government. It is interesting to note, too, that he refused to name names outside of closed session, until compelled to do so by the democrats.
You make me sad.
First, even PC says that Coulter is a babbling idiot 50% of the time.
Then you use Coulter as a resource.
But I gave you both the benefit of the doubt, and briefly researched Mary Jane Keeney.
I admit that finding an unbias source is problematic.
In 1946 the FBI generated a:
335-page report on information furnished by Elizabeth Bentley (Gregory) and follow-up through FBI surveillance concerning the Silvermaster Group, (Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, etc.), the Perlo Group (Alger Hiss, etc.), and others. Discusses contacts of Mary Jane Keeney with Joseph Bernstein, David Wahl, Maurice Halperin, etc
From the dubious wikipedia;
In February 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused Keeney of being a member of the Communist Party, not an agent serving a foreign government. By the end of 1950, Keeney lost her position with the United Nations. She was convicted of contempt of Congress, however the decision was overturned upon appeal.
Either way, you have been duped: Mary Jane Keeny was never convicted or exposed of treason as a spy, much less by McCarthy, and her only conviction (contempt of Congress) was overturned.
His whole gig was identifying loyalty risks who were working for the government. It is interesting to note, too, that he refused to name names outside of closed session, until compelled to do so by the democrats.
This was debunked here.
I fascinated that both you and PC seem enamoured of the same heresay McCarthy (Coulter?) quote, where he admits he's an idiot that casts a broad net, and catches....NOTHING!
At any rate, Wiki, as I said, is a somewhat disingenuous source, but like PoliticalChick, its cheap and easy. Even it makes the point that William Remmington was being investigated long before McCarthy began his witch-hunt:
McCarthy found nothing.
I don't agree. He found a loyalty risk, which was exactly what he was looking for. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't claim originality.
I wasn't aware PC quoted that bit already, but I'm fascinated that Wiki reports Remington's death as "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism."
OT Trivia: Which US Senator introduced a bill in 1954 that would have outlawed the Communist Party? (Hint: he was a Democrat.)
Wiki isn't really a source that I expect to find the most unbias information: Thus the "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." My question is what were the others?
Well then, you think McCarthy found a "loyalty risk." So now we're reduced to playing semantical footsie?
WTF is "LOYALTY RISK?"
His whole gig was identifying loyalty risks who were working for the government. It is interesting to note, too, that he refused to name names outside of closed session, until compelled to do so by the democrats.
This was debunked here.
From the bold, willowy beauty, herself:
"Among the Soviet operatives who had been in government jobs and named by McCarthy were T.A. Bisson, Mary Jane Keeney, Cedric Belfrage, Solomon Adler, Franz Neumann, Leonard Mins, Gustavo Duran, and William Remington (later killed with a bar of soap in prison by a patriotic inmate)." [Ann Coulter Treason, pp 59-60]
His whole gig was identifying loyalty risks who were working for the government. It is interesting to note, too, that he refused to name names outside of closed session, until compelled to do so by the democrats.
Thanks, I really like posting about subjects in which I have an interest.
And Beer-boy allowed me the opportunity.
I was expecting the libs to defend the Dem party, yell and scream about McCarthy, but they seem less than interested.
I may have to post a response to my own posts!
Shhh! He's dozing.
I think so many people have heard the Hollywood sob stories and revised histories that the truth about McCarthy was lost long ago. Somebody mentioned Ann Coulter's having put the record strait. I agree. He wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the drunken witch-hunter he's painted to be, either.
Face down in the Pea Soup. Good.
Since you mention Ms. Coulter, many liberal investigators have written extensively to support Alger Hiss innocence. Some are interesting, and insightful. But I have found that when both sides are carefully considered, the left defenders tend to quibble about small discrepancies, rather than the larger questions of Soviet involvement, Democrat laxity, and espionage. For example NYU researcher, Jeff Kisseloff, in The Alger Hiss Story (The Alger Hiss Story) claims to have found some 101 errors in the Ann Coulter book Treason, with respect to Hiss. He notes that Coulter mentions two dozen spies at one point, but the corresponding documents only list thirteen. I dont feel that such an error, while it might be true, obviates the point Coulter makes.
And on the Haynes and Klehr book: On July 11, 1995 the government released decoded Soviet cables. Hiss was identified based on numerous similarities to Ales in the cables. Here is part of an interesting defense of Hiss by John Lowenthal, a NYU (The Alger Hiss Story) claiming that could not have been Hiss, even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that Hiss was the spy he was in effect convicted of having been. Ales conducted espionage throughout the 11 years 1935-45 (message paragraph 1), whereas Hiss was accused, and in effect convicted, of having conducted espionage only in the mid-1930s and not later than 1938. Ales was the leader of a small group of espionage agents (par. 2); Hiss was accused of having acted alone, except for his wife as typist and Chambers as courier.
But the government case only includes the years where they felt they had the best evidence, and Hiss may simply have been the clearest target for investigation.
I commend this article and the Haynes and Klehr book on the Venona Papers as dispositive: draw your own conclusions.
I don't agree. He found a loyalty risk, which was exactly what he was looking for. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't claim originality.
I wasn't aware PC quoted that bit already, but I'm fascinated that Wiki reports Remington's death as "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism."
OT Trivia: Which US Senator introduced a bill in 1954 that would have outlawed the Communist Party? (Hint: he was a Democrat.)
Wiki isn't really a source that I expect to find the most unbias information: Thus the "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." My question is what were the others?
Well then, you think McCarthy found a "loyalty risk." So now we're reduced to playing semantical footsie?
WTF is "LOYALTY RISK?"
A loyalty risk is a fucking commie working in the goddamn State Department.
"...the real reason McCarthy came under attack is that he attempted to circumvent the criminal system, criminalize the 5th Ammendment, and add strong authoritative powers to the Federal Government..."
Instead of vague jargon of the left, please, if you can, show exactly what it is that Senator McCarthy did that you find objectionable.
No babble.
Specifics.
I find Senator McCarthy's illicit use of his seat in the United States Senate to name and vilify ordinary Americans with little, or scant, evidence to be extremely objectionable.
And you, of course, exemplify exactly the kind of thougtless liberal simp that the left counts on to follow blindly, to never question, or us the kind of disbelief of any right wing exposition.
As you have here.
Since you have presented no documentation to back up what passes for a point of view, your vote has been counted, and now you may return to the rest of the herd.
Shhh! He's dozing.
I think so many people have heard the Hollywood sob stories and revised histories that the truth about McCarthy was lost long ago. Somebody mentioned Ann Coulter's having put the record strait. I agree. He wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the drunken witch-hunter he's painted to be, either.
Face down in the Pea Soup. Good.
Since you mention Ms. Coulter, many liberal investigators have written extensively to support Alger Hiss innocence. Some are interesting, and insightful. But I have found that when both sides are carefully considered, the left defenders tend to quibble about small discrepancies, rather than the larger questions of Soviet involvement, Democrat laxity, and espionage. For example NYU researcher, Jeff Kisseloff, in The Alger Hiss Story (The Alger Hiss Story) claims to have found some 101 errors in the Ann Coulter book Treason, with respect to Hiss. He notes that Coulter mentions two dozen spies at one point, but the corresponding documents only list thirteen. I dont feel that such an error, while it might be true, obviates the point Coulter makes.
And on the Haynes and Klehr book: On July 11, 1995 the government released decoded Soviet cables. Hiss was identified based on numerous similarities to Ales in the cables. Here is part of an interesting defense of Hiss by John Lowenthal, a NYU (The Alger Hiss Story) claiming that could not have been Hiss, even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that Hiss was the spy he was in effect convicted of having been. Ales conducted espionage throughout the 11 years 1935-45 (message paragraph 1), whereas Hiss was accused, and in effect convicted, of having conducted espionage only in the mid-1930s and not later than 1938. Ales was the leader of a small group of espionage agents (par. 2); Hiss was accused of having acted alone, except for his wife as typist and Chambers as courier.
But the government case only includes the years where they felt they had the best evidence, and Hiss may simply have been the clearest target for investigation.
I commend this article and the Haynes and Klehr book on the Venona Papers as dispositive: draw your own conclusions.
Wiki isn't really a source that I expect to find the most unbias information: Thus the "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." My question is what were the others?
Well then, you think McCarthy found a "loyalty risk." So now we're reduced to playing semantical footsie?
WTF is "LOYALTY RISK?"
A loyalty risk is a fucking commie working in the goddamn State Department.
And here we have it folks: America the Free, Land of the Brave.
What about Jews working in the State Department? What about Libertarians?
How About Animalists? Hispanics?
It seems to me we can now define "Loyalty Risk" as anyone that may have an agenda different than our own.
What a good Stalinist you would have made, PoliticalChick.
"...First, even PC says that Coulter is a babbling idiot 50% of the time..."
Please document or retract.
For example NYU researcher, Jeff Kisseloff, in The Alger Hiss Story (The Alger Hiss Story) claims to have found some 101 errors in the Ann Coulter book Treason, with respect to Hiss. He notes that Coulter mentions two dozen spies at one point, but the corresponding documents only list thirteen. I dont feel that such an error, while it might be true.
"...First, even PC says that Coulter is a babbling idiot 50% of the time..."
Please document or retract.
For example NYU researcher, Jeff Kisseloff, in The Alger Hiss Story (The Alger Hiss Story) claims to have found some 101 errors in the Ann Coulter book Treason, with respect to Hiss. He notes that Coulter mentions two dozen spies at one point, but the corresponding documents only list thirteen. I dont feel that such an error, while it might be true.
Coulter's Error = about 50%
Babbling Idiots document 50% errors.
Coulter is a babbling idiot 50% of the time.
I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for the balance.
I like Occam's Razor on this matter:
If McCarthy was such a valued member of the Senate and force against communism, why has the GOP distanced itself from him over the past 60 years? Why does the term McCarthy-ism have negative connotations?
You can either believe that McCarthy was as he is portrayed in history.
Or you can buy into the fact that some sort of evil liberal conspiracy has devoted significant time and effort into deriding McCarthy for the past 60 years.
Hell, the only person who is arguing this is Ann Coulter, and I am of the belief that she doesn't believe half the shit she prints or says; she just knows how to play to her dumb-assed audience so they will buy her books (which are basically all the same book with a different binding).
Cha-Ching! $$$$$$$$$
Shhh! He's dozing.
I think so many people have heard the Hollywood sob stories and revised histories that the truth about McCarthy was lost long ago. Somebody mentioned Ann Coulter's having put the record strait. I agree. He wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the drunken witch-hunter he's painted to be, either.
Face down in the Pea Soup. Good.
Since you mention Ms. Coulter, many liberal investigators have written extensively to support Alger Hiss innocence. Some are interesting, and insightful. But I have found that when both sides are carefully considered, the left defenders tend to quibble about small discrepancies, rather than the larger questions of Soviet involvement, Democrat laxity, and espionage. For example NYU researcher, Jeff Kisseloff, in The Alger Hiss Story (The Alger Hiss Story) claims to have found some 101 errors in the Ann Coulter book Treason, with respect to Hiss. He notes that Coulter mentions two dozen spies at one point, but the corresponding documents only list thirteen. I dont feel that such an error, while it might be true, obviates the point Coulter makes.
And on the Haynes and Klehr book: On July 11, 1995 the government released decoded Soviet cables. Hiss was identified based on numerous similarities to Ales in the cables. Here is part of an interesting defense of Hiss by John Lowenthal, a NYU (The Alger Hiss Story) claiming that could not have been Hiss, even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that Hiss was the spy he was in effect convicted of having been. Ales conducted espionage throughout the 11 years 1935-45 (message paragraph 1), whereas Hiss was accused, and in effect convicted, of having conducted espionage only in the mid-1930s and not later than 1938. Ales was the leader of a small group of espionage agents (par. 2); Hiss was accused of having acted alone, except for his wife as typist and Chambers as courier.
But the government case only includes the years where they felt they had the best evidence, and Hiss may simply have been the clearest target for investigation.
I commend this article and the Haynes and Klehr book on the Venona Papers as dispositive: draw your own conclusions.
Wiki isn't really a source that I expect to find the most unbias information: Thus the "one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." My question is what were the others?
Well then, you think McCarthy found a "loyalty risk." So now we're reduced to playing semantical footsie?
WTF is "LOYALTY RISK?"
A loyalty risk is a fucking commie working in the goddamn State Department.
And here we have it folks: America the Free, Land of the Brave.
What about Jews working in the State Department? What about Libertarians?
How About Animalists? Hispanics?
It seems to me we can now define "Loyalty Risk" as anyone that may have an agenda different than our own.
What a good Stalinist you would have made, PoliticalChick.
His whole gig was identifying loyalty risks who were working for the government. It is interesting to note, too, that he refused to name names outside of closed session, until compelled to do so by the democrats.
This was debunked here.
Thanks, DT, but I'm not sure what your link debunks. That seems to be a recounting of a trial, with Mc telling a defendent that he was planning on turning testimony over to the defendant's employer and assuming that soon thereafter they would no longer be employed. Was the defendant guilty?
