January 10, 2010
June 14, 2013
JB Campbell: Anti-American –
June 7, 2013
* —>DC Dave’s archives>
* Blog of Blogs –
- A place of sanctuary for those who love liberty and truth (<Carol A. Valentine>) :
June 5, 2013
America’s Retreat From Victory by Senator Joe McCarthy –
|Historic Senate Hearings Published|
S. Prt. 107-84 — Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations (McCarthy Hearings 1953-54). Closed according to Senate rules for 50 years, these hearings are now available to researchers and the public.
This five-volume collection of Senate hearings is available online (in PDF format). Volumes 1-4 cover the 1953 hearings, and 1954 hearings are found in volume 5.
Volume 1 (Skip the BULLSHIT preface by CARL LEVIN & SUSAN COLLINS, the introduction by Donald Richie, and “editor’s notes,”etc.(or read ‘em to discover their arrant perfidy.) Those people REALLY should be hung!!!!!!) The transcripts speak for themselves.
* James Forrestal and Joe McCarthy -
June 4, 2013
|Vol. 3, No. 10
May 11, 1987
Table of Contents
Forty questions and answers about Senator Joseph McCarthy
by James J. Drummey
Thirty years after the death of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, twice-elected United States Senator from Wisconsin, the term “McCarthyism” is still widely used as a convenient and easily understood epithet for all that is evil and despicable in the world of politics. Hardly a month passes without some reference to “McCarthyism” in the print or electronic media. Despite the frequency with which the term is invoked, however, it is quite clear that not one critic of McCarthy in a hundred has the slightest idea of what he said and did during that controversial period from 1950 to 1954.
Whether Joe McCarthy was right or wrong, it is important that we know the truth about him. If he was wrong, then we can learn some important lessons for the future. If he was right, then we need to be vitally concerned about the issues he raised because virtually nothing has been done to deal effectively with those issues since the mid-1950s.
A brief biographical sketch of the Senator’s life appears elsewhere in this magazine (page 58), along with some assessments of him by his contemporaries (page 59). This article will attempt to answer many of the questions asked about Joe McCarthy and the criticisms directed at him. The responses are based on years of study of McCarthy’s speeches and writings, congressional hearings in which he was involved, and more than a score of books about him, most of them highly critical and condemnatory.
I. The Years Before 1950
Q. Was Joe McCarthy a lax and unethical judge?
A. Joe McCarthy was elected as a circuit judge in Wisconsin in 1939 and took over a district court that had a backlog of more than 200 cases. By eliminating a lot of legal red tape and working long hours (his court remained open past midnight at least a dozen times), Judge McCarthy cleared up the backlog quickly and, in the words of one local newspaper, “administered justice promptly and with a combination of legal knowledge and good sense.” On October 28, 1940, the Milwaukee Journal editorialized: “Breaking with the ‘horse-and-buggy’ tradition that has tied up the calendars of most Wisconsin circuit courts, young Judge Joseph R. McCarthy of Appleton has streamlined his tenth district … and has made a hit with lawyers and litigants alike.”
Q. Did McCarthy exaggerate his military record in World War II?
A. Although his judgeship exempted him from military service, McCarthy enlisted in the Marines and was sworn in as a first lieutenant in August 1942. He served as an intelligence officer for a bomber squadron stationed in the Solomon Islands and had the responsibility of briefing and debriefing pilots before and after their missions. McCarthy also risked his life by volunteering to fly in the tail-gunner’s seat on many combat missions. Those who quibble about the number of combat missions he flew miss the point — he didn’t have to fly any.
The enemies of McCarthy have seized on his good-natured remark about shooting down coconut trees from his tail-gunner’s spot (ABC’s three-hour movie about McCarthy in 1977 was entitled Tail Gunner Joe) to belittle his military accomplishments, but the official record gives the true picture. Not only were McCarthy’s achievements during 30 months of active duty unanimously praised by his commanding officers, but Admiral Chester Nimitz, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet, issued the following citation regarding the service of Captain McCarthy:
For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as an observer and rear gunner of a dive bomber attached to a Marine scout bombing squadron operating in the Solomon Islands area from September 1 to December 31, 1943. He participated in a large number of combat missions, and in addition to his regular duties, acted as aerial photographer. He obtained excellent photographs of enemy gun positions, despite intense anti-aircraft fire, thereby gaining valuable information which contributed materially to the success of subsequent strikes in the area. Although suffering from a severe leg injury, he refused to be hospitalized and continued to carry out his duties as Intelligence Officer in a highly efficient manner. His courageous devotion to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the naval service.
Q. Was McCarthy backed by the Communists in his 1946 campaign for the U.S. Senate?
A. In 1946, Joe McCarthy upset incumbent U.S. Senator Robert La Follette by 5,378 votes in the Republican primary and went on to beat Democrat Howard McMurray by 251,658 votes in the general election. The Communist Party of Wisconsin had originally circulated petitions to place its own candidate on the ballot as an Independent in the general election. When McCarthy scored his surprising victory over La Follette, the Communists did not file the petitions for their candidate, but rallied instead behind McMurray. Thus, Joe McCarthy defeated a Democratic-Communist coalition in 1946.
Q. Had Joe McCarthy ever spoken out against Communism prior to his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950?
A. Those who contend that McCarthy stumbled across Communism while searching for an issue to use in his 1952 reelection campaign will be disappointed to know that the Senator had been speaking out against Communism for years. He made Communism an issue in his campaign against Howard McMurray in 1946, charging that McMurray had received the endorsement of the Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper. In April 1947, McCarthy told the Madison Capital Times that his top priority was “to stop the spread of Communism.” On the Meet the Press radio show in July of that year, the Wisconsin Senator said: “We’ve been at war with Russia for some time now, and Russia has been winning this war at a faster rate than we were, during the last stages of the last war. Everyone is painfully aware of the fact that we are at war — and that we’re losing it.”
During a speech in Milwaukee in 1952, Senator McCarthy dated the public phase of his fight against Communists to May 22, 1949, the night that former Secretary of Defense James Forrestal was found dead on the ground outside Bethesda Naval Hospital. “The Communists hounded Forrestal to his death,” said McCarthy. “They killed him just as definitely as if they had thrown him from that sixteenth-story window in Bethesda Naval Hospital.” He said that “while I am not a sentimental man, I was touched deeply and left numb by the news of Forrestal’s murder. But I was affected much more deeply when I heard of the Communist celebration when they heard of Forrestal’s murder. On that night, I dedicated part of this fight to Jim Forrestal.”
Thus, Joe McCarthy was receptive in the fall of 1949 when three men brought to his office a 100-page FBI report alleging extensive Communist penetration of the State Department. The trio had asked three other Senators to awaken the American people to this dangerous situation, but only McCarthy was willing to take on this volatile project.
II. A Lone Senator (1950-1952)
Q. What was the security situation in the State Department at the time of McCarthy’s Wheeling speech in February 1950?
A. Communist infiltration of the State Department began in the 1930s. On September 2, 1939, former Communist Whittaker Chambers provided Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle with the names and Communist connections of two dozen spies in the government, including Alger Hiss. Berle took the information to President Roosevelt, but FDR laughed it off. Hiss moved rapidly up the State Department ladder and served as an advisor to Roosevelt at the disastrous Yalta Conference in 1945 that paved the way for the Soviet conquest of Central and Eastern Europe. Hiss also functioned as the secretary general of the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco, helped to draft the UN Charter, and later filled dozens of positions at the UN with American Communists before he was publicly exposed as a Soviet spy by Whittaker Chambers in 1948.
The security problem at the State Department had worsened considerably in 1945 when a merger brought into State thousands of employees from such war agencies as the Office of Strategic Services, the Office of War Information, and the Foreign Economic Administration — all of which were riddled with members of the Communist underground. J. Anthony Panuch, the State Department official charged with supervising the 1945 merger, told a Senate committee in 1953 that “the biggest single thing that contributed to the infiltration of the State Department was the merger of 1945. The effects of that are still being felt.” In 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall and Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson engineered the firing of Panuch and the removal of every key member of his security staff.
In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Secretary Marshall, calling to his attention a condition that developed and still flourishes in the State Department under the administration of Dean Acheson. It is evident that there is a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect Communist personnel in high places but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involves a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions.
The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were “only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security. There is also the extensive employment in highly classified positions of admitted homosexuals, who are historically known to be security risks.” On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy’s speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
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.”
Q. Was Joe McCarthy the only member of Congress critical of those whose policies had put 400 million Chinese into Communist slavery?
A. No, there were others who were equally disturbed. For instance, on January 30, 1949, one year before McCarthy’s Wheeling speech, a young Congressman from Massachusetts deplored “the disasters befalling China and the United States” and declared that “it is of the utmost importance that we search out and spotlight those who must bear the responsibility for our present predicament.” The Congressman placed a major part of the blame on “a sick Roosevelt,” General George Marshall, and “our diplomats and their advisors, the Lattimores and the Fairbanks,” and he concluded: “This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.” The Congressman’s name was John F. Kennedy.
Q. What did McCarthy actually say in his Wheeling speech?
A. Addressing the Ohio County Women’s Republican Club on February 9, 1950, Senator McCarthy first quoted from Marx, Lenin, and Stalin their stated goal of world conquest and said that “today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity.” He blamed the fall of China and other countries to the Communists in the previous six years on “the traitorous actions” of the State Department’s “bright young men,” and he mentioned specifically John S. Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Kenny (it should have been Keeney), Julian Wadleigh, Dr. Harlow Shapley, Alger Hiss, and Dean Acheson. The part of the speech that catapulted McCarthy from relative obscurity into the national spotlight contained these words:
I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.
Q. Wasn’t it reported that McCarthy used the number 205 in his Wheeling speech, lowered it to 57 later, and then raised it again to 81?
A. Yes, this was reported, and here is the explanation: In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of Communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department’s payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals — the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.
The enemies of McCarthy have juggled these numbers around to make the Senator appear to be erratic and to distract attention from the paramount question: Were there still Alger Hisses in the State Department betraying this nation? McCarthy was not being inconsistent in his use of the numbers; the 57 and 81 were part of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter.
Q. Was it fair for McCarthy to make all those names public and ruin reputations?
A. That is precisely why McCarthy did not make the names public. Four times during the February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas demanded that McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused to do so, responding that “if I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist, I think it would be too bad.” What McCarthy did was to identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their names.
By the way, it took McCarthy some six hours to make that February 20th speech because of harassment by hostile Senators, four of whom — Scott Lucas, Brien McMahon, Garrett Withers, and Herbert Lehman — interrupted him a total of 123 times. It should also be noted that McCarthy was not indicting the entire State Department. He said that “the vast majority of the employees of the State Department are loyal” and that he was only after the ones who had demonstrated a loyalty to the Soviet Union or to the Communist Party.
Further, McCarthy admitted that “some of these individuals whose cases I am giving the Senate are no longer in the State Department. A sizable number of them are not. Some of them have transferred to other government work, work allied with the State Department. Others have been transferred to the United Nations.” Senator Karl Mundt supported McCarthy on this point by noting that “one of the great difficulties we confront in trying to get Communists out of government is that apparently once they have been removed from one department there is no alert given to the other departments, so they simply drift from one department to another.”
Q. What was the purpose of the Tydings Committee?
A. The Tydings Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was set up in February 1950 to conduct “a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State.” The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat, set the tone for the hearings on the first day when he told McCarthy: “You are in the position of being the man who occasioned this hearing, and so far as I am concerned in this committee you are going to get one of the most complete investigations ever given in the history of this Republic, so far as my abilities will permit.”
After 31 days of hearings, during which McCarthy presented public evidence on nine persons (Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup, Esther Brunauer, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, Gustavo Duran, John Stewart Service, and Owen Lattimore), the Tydings Committee labeled McCarthy’s charges a “fraud” and a “hoax,” said that the individuals on his list were neither Communist nor pro-Communist, and concluded that the State Department had an effective security program.
Q. Did the Tydings Committee carry out its mandate?
A. Not by a long shot. The Tydings Committee never investigated State Department security at all and did not come close to conducting the “full and complete study and investigation” it was supposed to conduct. Tydings and his Democratic colleagues, Brien McMahon and Theodore Green, subjected McCarthy to considerable interruptions and heckling, prompting Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to protest that McCarthy “never gets a fair shake” in trying to present his evidence in an orderly fashion. So persistent were the interruptions and statements of the Democratic trio during the first two days of the hearings that McCarthy was allowed only a total of 17½ minutes of direct testimony.
While the Democrats were hostile to McCarthy and to any witnesses that could confirm his charges, they fawned all over the six individuals who appeared before the committee to deny McCarthy’s accusations. Tydings, McMahon, and Green not only treated Philip Jessup like a hero, for one example, but refused to let McCarthy present his full case against Jessup or to cross-examine him. Furthermore, the committee majority declined to call more than 20 witnesses whom Senator Bourke Hickenlooper thought were important to the investigation. And when Senator Lodge read into the record 19 questions that he thought should be answered before the committee exonerated the State Department’s security system, not only did the Democrats ignore the questions, but some member of the committee or the staff deleted from the official transcript of the hearings the 19 questions as well as other testimony that made the committee look bad. The deleted material amounted to 35 typewritten pages.
It is clear then that the Tydings Committee did not carry out its mandate and that the words “fraud” and “hoax” more accurately describe the Tydings Report than they do McCarthy’s charges.
There is one other dirty trick played on McCarthy by Senator Tydings that should be mentioned because it shows how dishonest McCarthy’s enemies were. McCarthy wanted to present his information in closed sessions, but Tydings insisted on public sessions. So when McCarthy arrived at the first hearing, he gave reporters a press release about Dorothy Kenyon, his first case. Tydings then told McCarthy publicly that he could give his evidence in executive session if he wished and gave him two minutes to make up his mind. Since the committee had already rejected his request for closed sessions, and since he had already given the press material about his first case, McCarthy told Tydings that “we will have to proceed with this one in open session.”
As deceitful as Tydings was in trying to make McCarthy appear to be responsible for public hearings, the reporters who were present were just as bad. They knew what Tydings was trying to do, and yet they joined in spreading this malicious falsehood about McCarthy.
Q. So, was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department?
A. He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave to the Tydings Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State Department at the time of the hearings. The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy’s list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.
Q. Can you cite some particular examples?
A. Sure. Let’s take three of McCarthy’s nine public cases — those of John Stewart Service, Philip Jessup, and Owen Lattimore.* Five years before McCarthy mentioned the name of John Stewart Service, Service was arrested for giving classified documents to the editors of Amerasia, a Communist magazine. The Truman Administration, however, managed to cover up the espionage scandal and Service was never punished for his crime. McCarthy also produced considerable evidence that Service had been “part of the pro-Soviet group” that wanted to bring Communism to China, but the Tydings Committee said that Service was “not disloyal, pro-Communist, or a security risk.” Over the next 18 months, the State Department’s Loyalty Security Board cleared Service four more times, but finally, in December 1951, the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Review Board found that there was “reasonable doubt” as to his loyalty and ousted him from the State Department.
Was the career of Mr. Service ruined by this decision? Not on your life. The Supreme Court reinstated him in 1956 and Service was the American consul in Liverpool, England, until his retirement in 1962. He then joined the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley and visited Red China in the fall of 1971 at the invitation of Communist tyrant Chou En-lai. Following his return from the country he helped to communize, Service wrote four articles for the New York Times and was the subject of a laudatory cover interview in Parade magazine.
All that Joe McCarthy said about Philip Jessup was that he had an “unusual affinity for Communist causes.” The record shows that Jessup belonged to at least five Communist-controlled fronts, that he associated closely with Communists, and that he was an influential member of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), which the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) described in 1952 as “a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives.” The SISS also reported that 46 persons connected with the IPR while Jessup was a leading light there had been named under oath as members of the Communist Party.
The Senate apparently felt that McCarthy was closer to the truth than the Tydings Committee because in 1951 it rejected Jessup’s nomination as a delegate to the United Nations. After the Senate adjourned, however, President Truman appointed him anyway. In 1960, President Eisenhower named Jessup to represent the United States on the International Court of Justice, and Jessup served on the World Court until 1969. He died in 1986.
Owen Lattimore was one of the principal architects of the State Department’s pro-Communist foreign policy in the Far East. In a closed session of the Tydings Committee, Senator McCarthy called Lattimore “the top Russian spy” in the department. (That charge, by the way, was leaked to the public not by McCarthy but by columnist Drew Pearson.) McCarthy later modified his statement on Lattimore, saying that “I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether or not he has been an espionage agent,” and went on to say that “thirteen different witnesses have testified under oath to Lattimore’s Communist membership or party-line activities.” Although the Tydings Committee cleared Lattimore of all charges, another Senate committee, the Internal Security Subcommittee, vindicated Joe McCarthy when it declared in 1952 that “Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy.”
Was Lattimore hurt by this or by his subsequent indictment for perjury? Of course not. He continued on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University, went to Communist Outer Mongolia for the Kennedy State Department in 1961, became head of a new Chinese studies department at Leeds University in England in 1963, and returned to the United States in the Seventies for speeches and lectures. On January 28th of this year, Lattimore told the Associated Press from his home in Rhode Island that the Reagan Administration’s decision to establish diplomatic ties with Communist Mongolia was “long overdue.”
Q. Even if McCarthy was right about Service, Jessup, and Lattimore, weren’t there hundreds of others who were publicly smeared by him?
A. This is one of the most enduring myths about McCarthy, and it is completely false. It is a fact, said Buckley and Bozell in McCarthy and His Enemies, that from February 9, 1950, until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 persons, and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. We have just talked about three of the Senator’s major targets, and Buckley and Bozell pointed out that McCarthy “never said anything more damaging about Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John Carter Vincent, than that they are known to one or more responsible persons as having been members of the Communist Party, which is in each of these instances true.”
While McCarthy may have exaggerated the significance of the evidence against some other individuals, his record on the whole is extremely good. (This is also true of the 1953-54 period when he was chairman of a Senate committee and publicly exposed 114 persons, most of whom refused to answer questions about Communist or espionage activities on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them.) There were no innocent victims of McCarthyism. Those whom McCarthy accused had indeed collaborated in varying degrees with Communism and Communists, had shown no remorse for their actions, and thoroughly deserved whatever scorn was directed at them.
Q. What about McCarthy’s attack on General George Marshall? Wasn’t that a smear of a great man?
A. This is a reference to the 60,000-word speech he delivered on the Senate floor on June 14, 1951 (later published as a book entitled America’s Retreat From Victory). One interesting thing about the speech is that McCarthy drew almost entirely from sources friendly to Marshall in discussing nearly a score of his actions and policies that had helped the Communists in the USSR, Europe, China, and Korea. “I do not propose to go into his motives,” said McCarthy. “Unless one has all the tangled and often complicated circumstances contributing to a man’s decisions, an inquiry into his motives is often fruitless. I do not pretend to understand General Marshall’s nature and character, and I shall leave that subject to subtler analysts of human personality.”
One may agree or disagree with McCarthy’s statement that America’s steady retreat from victory “must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.” That statement was very controversial in 1951, but after 36 years of no-win wars in Korea and Vietnam, along with Soviet expansionism throughout the world, aided and abetted in large measure by U.S. policymakers, it doesn’t seem so controversial anymore. In any case, before judging McCarthy on what he is supposed to have said about Marshall, we recommend reading the book to find out what he actually said and to see how extensive was his documentation.
Q. Can it be true that State Department policy toward the Communists didn’t change very much even after McCarthy helped get many pro-Communists out of the department?
A. Unfortunately, it is true. McCarthy, you see, only scratched the surface. He did prompt a tightening of security procedures for a while, and the State Department and other sensitive federal agencies dismissed nearly 4,000 employees in 1953 and 1954, although many of them shifted to nonsensitive departments. Some of these security risks returned to their old agencies when security was virtually scrapped during the Kennedy Administration.
During the mid-1950s, a State Department security specialist named Otto Otepka reviewed the files of all department personnel and found some kind of derogatory information on 1,943 persons, almost 20 percent of the total payroll. He told the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee years later that of the 1,943 employees, 722 “left the department for various reasons, but mostly by transfer to other agencies, before a final security determination was made.” Otepka trimmed the remaining number on the list to 858 and in December 1955 sent their names to his boss, Scott McLeod, as persons to be watched because of Communist associations, homosexuality, habitual drunkenness, or mental illness.
McLeod’s staff reviewed the Otepka list and narrowed it down to 258 persons who were judged to be “serious” security risks. “Approximately 150 were in high-level posts where they could in one way or another influence the formulation of United States foreign policy,” said William J. Gill, author of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka. “And fully half of these 258 serious cases were officials in either crucial Intelligence assignments or serving on top-secret committees reaching all the way up and into the National Security Council.” As many as 175 of the 258 were still in important policy posts as of the mid-1960s, but Otto Otepka had been ousted from the State Department by that time and we are not aware of anyone like Otepka keeping track of security risks since then — and that was more than 20 years ago.
Considering the State Department’s virtually unbroken record over the past 30 years of undermining anti-Communist governments and backing Communist regimes, of putting Soviet desires ahead of American interests, of allowing 200 Soviet nationals to work and spy for years in our embassy in Moscow, and of bitterly opposing Reagan Administration efforts in 1986 to reduce the massive Soviet espionage presence at the United Nations by one-third, it is not unreasonable to wonder how many heirs of Alger Hiss are still making policy there.
Bear in mind, too, that Communist penetration of the U.S. government was not confined to the State Department. On July 30, 1953, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, chaired by Senator William Jenner, released its report on Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments. Among its conclusions:
1. The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government and this penetration has not been fully exposed.
2. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top-level policy and operating positions in our government.
3. The agents of this penetration have operated in accordance with a distinct design fashioned by their Soviet superiors.
4. Members of this conspiracy helped to get each other into government, helped each other to rise in government, and protected each other from exposure.
Summarizing the 1952 testimony of former Soviet courier Elizabeth Bentley, who had identified 37 Soviet agents within the U.S. government, the subcommittee also said that “to her knowledge there were four Soviet espionage rings operating within our government and that only two of these have been exposed.” In October 1953, a Soviet defector named Colonel Ismail Ege estimated that a minimum of 20 spy networks were operating within the United States in 1941-1942, when he was chief of the Fourth Section of Soviet General Staff Intelligence. Thirty-four years after Ege’s testimony, these espionage rings and networks still have not been publicly exposed.
On February 5, 1987, the New York Times reported that an 18-month investigation by the House Intelligence Committee “had uncovered ‘dangerous laxity’ and serious ‘security failures’ in the government’s system of catching spies. Even though 27 Americans have been charged with espionage in the last two years, and all but one of those brought to trial have been found guilty, the committee said in a report that it still found ‘a puzzling, almost nonchalant attitude toward recent espionage cases on the part of some senior U.S. intelligence officials.’” According to the Times, “the investigation found ‘faulty hiring practices, poor management of probationary employees, thoughtless firing practices, lax security practices, inadequate interagency cooperation — even bungled surveillance of a prime espionage suspect.’”
The same “nonchalant attitude” toward Communist spies that Joe McCarthy denounced in the early 1950s still exists today. Only there is no Joe McCarthy in the Senate urging that something. be done to correct this dangerous situation. Nor are there any congressional committees investigating Communist subversion in government. The destruction of Joe McCarthy not only removed him from the fight, it also sent a powerful message to anyone else who might be contemplating a similar battle: Try to ferret Communists and pro-Communists out of the government and you will be harassed, smeared, and ultimately destroyed.
Q. But why do we need congressional committees? Can’t the FBI do the job?
A. The function of the FBI is to gather information and pass it along to the agency or department where the security problem exists. If the FBI report is ignored, or if the department does take action and is overruled by a review board, only a congressional committee can expose and remedy this situation. Some examples: In December 1945, the FBI sent President Truman a report showing that his Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White, was a Soviet spy. Truman ignored the warning and, early in 1946, promoted White to executive director of the U.S. Mission to the International Monetary Fund. The FBI sent Truman a second report, but again he did nothing. White resigned from the government in 1947, and his Communist ties were exposed by Elizabeth Bentley when she appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948.
The FBI warned the State Department in the mid-1940s of extensive Communist penetration of the department, but the warning was disregarded for the most part. It was not until Joe McCarthy turned the spotlight on the situation that dozens of security risks were removed. The FBI had also sent some 40 confidential reports about the Communist activities of Edward Rothschild, an employee of the Government Printing Office, but Rothschild wasn’t removed from his sensitive position until his background was exposed by the McCarthy Committee in 1953.
III. Committee Chairman (1953-54)
Q. Granted that congressional investigating committees can serve an important purpose, weren’t McCarthy’s methods terrible and didn’t he subject witnesses to awful harassment?
A. Now we’re into an entirely different phase of McCarthy’s career. For three years, he had been one lone Senator crying in the wilderness. With the Republicans taking control of the Senate in January 1953, however, Joe McCarthy became chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee. No longer did he have to rely solely upon public speeches to inform the American people of the Communist threat to America. He was now chairman of a Senate committee with a mandate to search out graft, incompetence, and disloyalty inside the vast reaches of the American government.
As for McCarthy’s methods, they were no different from those of other Senators who were generally applauded for vigorous cross-examination of organized crime figures, for instance. The question of methods seems to come up only when subversives or spies are on the witness stand. And those who most loudly deplored McCarthy’s methods often resorted to the foulest methods themselves, including the use of lies, half-truths, and innuendos designed to stir up hysteria against him. What some people seemingly do not understand is that Communists are evildoers and that those who give aid and comfort to Communists — whether they are called dupes, fellow travelers, liberals, or progressives — are also evildoers who should be exposed and removed from positions of influence.
Traitors and spies in high places are not easy to identify. They do not wear sweatshirts with the hammer and sickle emblazoned on the front. Only painstaking investigation and exhaustive questioning can reveal them as enemies. So why all the condemnation for those who expose spies and none for the spies themselves? Why didn’t McCarthy’s critics expose a traitor now and then and show everyone how much better they could do it? No, it was much easier to hound out of public life such determined enemies of the Reds as Martin Dies, Parnell Thomas, and Joe McCarthy than to muster the courage to face up to the howling Communist wolfpack themselves.
Q. So, McCarthy’s treatment of persons appearing before his committee was not as bad as has been reported?
A. Exactly. Let’s look at the record. During 1953 and the first three months of 1954 (McCarthy was immobilized for the remainder of 1954 by two investigations of him), McCarthy’s committee held 199 days of hearings and examined 653 witnesses. These individuals first appeared in executive session and were told of the evidence against them. If they were able to offer satisfactory explanations — and most of them were — they were dismissed and nobody ever knew they had been summoned.
Those who appeared in public sessions were either hardened Fifth Amendment pleaders or persons about whom there was a reasonably strong presumption of guilt. But even those witnesses who were brazen, insulting, and defiant were afforded their constitutional rights to confer with their counsel before answering a question (something they would not be allowed to do in a courtroom), to confront their accusers or at least have them identified and have questions submitted to them by their counsel, and to invoke the First and Fifth Amendments rather than answer questions about their alleged Communist associations.
Of the 653 persons called by the McCarthy Committee during that 15-month period, 83 refused to answer questions about Communist or espionage activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, but their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the Army, the Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, the Veterans Administration, and the United Nations. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York. Nineteen of the 83, including such well-known Communist propagandists as James S. Allen, Herbert Aptheker, and Earl Browder, were summoned because their writings were being carried in U.S. Information Service libraries around the world.
Charles E. Ford, an attorney for Edward Rothschild in the Government Printing Office hearings, was so impressed with McCarthy’s fairness toward his client that he declared: “I think the committee session at this day and in this place is most admirable and most American.” Peter Gragis, who appeared before the McCarthy Committee on March 10, 1954, said that he had come to the hearing terrified because the press “had pointed out that you were very abusive, that you were crucifying people …. My experience has been quite the contrary. I have, I think, been very understandingly treated. I have been, I think, highly respected despite the fact that for some 20 years I had been more or less an active Communist.”
Q. Weren’t McCarthy and some members of his staff guilty of “book-burning” and causing a ruckus in Europe in 1953?
A. This accusation was made in reference to the committee’s inquiry into Communist influences in State Department libraries overseas. In his book McCarthy, Roy Cohn, the committee’s chief counsel, conceded that he and committee staffer David Schine “unwittingly handed Joe McCarthy’s enemies a perfect opportunity to spread the tale that a couple of young, inexperienced clowns were bustling about Europe, ordering State Department officials around, burning books, creating chaos wherever they went, and disrupting foreign relations.” In point of fact, however, the trip and subsequent hearings by the committee provided information that led to the removal of more than 30,000 Communist and pro-Communist books from U.S. Information Service libraries in foreign countries. The presence of such books was in obvious conflict with the stated purpose of those libraries: “to promote better understanding of America abroad” and “to combat and expose Soviet communistic propaganda.”
Q. But didn’t McCarthy summon to those hearings a man whose major sin was having written a book on college football 21 years before?
A. In March 1953, the McCarthy Committee did hear testimony from Reed Harris, deputy head of the State Department’s International Information Administration and author of King Football. Harris’ book, however, was not confined to football. The author also advocated that Communists and Socialists be allowed to teach in colleges and said that hungry people in America, after “watching gangsters and corrupt politicians gulp joyously from the horn of plenty,” just might “decide that even the horrors of those days of fighting which inaugurated the era of communism in Russia would be preferable to the present state of affairs” in the United States.
The following colloquy between Harris and Senator John McClellan is never quoted by McCarthy’s critics:
McClellan. Here is what I am concerned about. In the first place, I will ask you this: If it should be established that a person entertained the views and philosophies that you expressed in that book, would you consider that person suitable or fit to hold a position in the Voice of America which you now hold?
Harris. I would not.
McClellan. You would not employ such a person, would you?
Harris. I would not, Senator.
McClellan. Now we find you in that position.
Harris. That is correct.
Before shedding any tears for Mr. Harris, who resigned his post in April 1953, be advised that when anti-McCarthy hysteric Edward R. Murrow took over the U.S. Information Agency in 1961, he hired Reed Harris as his deputy, proving once again that the only true victim of McCarthyism was Joe McCarthy himself.
Q. But what about that poor old black woman that McCarthy falsely accused of being a Communist?
A. That woman was Annie Lee Moss, who lost her job working with classified messages at the Pentagon after an FBI undercover operative testified that she was a member of the Communist Party. When she appeared before the McCarthy Committee early in 1954, Mrs. Moss, who lived at 72 R Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., denied she was a Communist. Her defenders accused McCarthy of confusing Mrs. Moss with another woman with a similar name at a different address. Edward R. Murrow made the woman a heroine on his television program and the anti-McCarthy press trumpeted this episode as typical of McCarthy’s abominations.
And so things stood until September 1958 when the Subversive Activities Control Board reported that copies of the Communist Party’s own records showed that “one Annie Lee Moss, 72 R Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., was a party member in the mid-1940s.” Mrs. Moss got her Pentagon job back in 1954 and was still working for the Army in December 1958.
Q. Mrs. Moss might have gotten her job back, but what about all those individuals who lost their jobs in defense plants?
A. During its probe of 13 defense plants whose contracts with the government ran into hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the McCarthy Committee heard 101 witnesses, two of whom — William H. Teto and Herman E. Thomas — provided the committee with information about the Red spy network and the efforts of the Communists to set up cells in the plants. The committee’s exposures led to the dismissal of 32 persons and the tightening of security regulations at the plants. The president of General Electric, for example, issued a policy statement expressing concern about “the possible danger to the safety and security of company property and personnel whenever a General Electric employee admits he is a Communist or when he asserts before a competent investigating government body that he might incriminate himself by giving truthful answers concerning his Communist affiliations or his possible espionage or sabotage activities.”
At the time McCarthy’s investigations were halted early in 1954, his probers had accumulated evidence involving an additional 155 defense workers, but he was never able to question those individuals under oath. On January 12, 1959, Congressman Gordon Scherer, a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, said that he knew of a minimum of 2,000 “potential espionage agents and saboteurs” working in the nation’s defense plants. But there have been no congressional investigations in this vital area since Senator McCarthy was stymied in 1954.
Q. What were the Fort Monmouth hearings all about? Weren’t all of those fired eventually given back their jobs?
A. The Army Signal Corps installation at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was one of the nation’s most vital security posts since the three research centers housed there were engaged in developing defensive devices designed to protect America from an atomic attack. Julius Rosenberg, who was executed in 1953 for selling U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, worked as an inspector at Fort Monmouth from 1940 to 1945 and maintained his Signal Corps contacts for at least another two years after that. From 1949 to 1953, the FBI had been warning the Army about security risks at Fort Monmouth, but the Army paid little or no attention to the reports of subversion until the McCarthy investigation began in 1953.
During 1953 and 1954, the McCarthy Committee, acting on reports of Communist infiltration from civilian employees, Army officers, and enlisted personnel, heard 71 witnesses at executive sessions and 41 at open hearings. The Army responded by suspending or discharging 35 persons as security risks, but when these cases reached the Army Loyalty and Screening Board at the Pentagon, all but two of the suspected security risks were reinstated and given back pay. McCarthy demanded the names of the 20 civilians on the review board and, when he threatened to subpoena them, the Eisenhower Administration, at a meeting in Attorney General Herbert Brownell’s office on January 21, 1954, began plotting to stop McCarthy’s investigations once and for all.
Yes, virtually all of those suspended were eventually restored to duty at Fort Monmouth and anti-McCarthyites have cited this as proof that McCarthy had failed once again to substantiate his allegations. But vindication of McCarthy came later, when the Army’s top-secret operations at Fort Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona. In his 1979 book With No Apologies, Senator Barry Goldwater explained the reason for the move:
Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been penetrated. They didn’t want to admit that McCarthy was right in his accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New Jersey to a new location in Arizona.
Q. Speaking of the Army, what was the name of that dentist that McCarthy said was a Communist?
A. His name was Irving Peress and here is some background information. In December 1953, an Army general alerted Senator McCarthy to the incredible story of this New York dentist who was drafted into the Army as a captain in October 1952; who refused a month later to answer questions on a Defense Department form about membership in subversive organizations; who was recommended for dismissal by the Surgeon General of the Army in April 1953; but who requested and received a promotion to major the following October. Roy Cohn gave the facts on Peress to Army Counsel John G. Adams in December 1953, and Adams promised to do something about it.
When still no action had been taken on Peress a month later, McCarthy subpoenaed him before the committee on January 30, 1954. Peress took the Fifth Amendment 20 times when asked about his membership in the Communist Party, his attendance at a Communist training school, and his efforts to recruit military personnel into the party. Two days later, McCarthy sent a letter to Army Secretary Robert Stevens by special messenger, reviewing the testimony of Peress and requesting that he be courtmartialed and that the Army find out who promoted Peress, knowing that he was a Communist. On that same day, February 1st, Peress asked for an honorable separation from the Army, which he promptly received the next day from his commanding officer at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, Brigadier General Ralph W. Zwicker.
McCarthy took the next logical step and summoned General Zwicker to a closed session of the committee on February 18th. There was no reason at that time for McCarthy to suppose that Zwicker would be anything but a frank and cooperative witness. In separate conversations with two McCarthy staff members, on January 22nd and February 13th, Zwicker had said that he was familiar with Peress’ Communist connections and that he was opposed to giving him an honorable discharge, but that he was ordered to do so by someone at the Pentagon.
When he appeared before McCarthy, however, Zwicker was evasive, hostile, and uncooperative. He changed his story three times when asked if he had known at the time he signed the discharge that Peress had refused to answer questions before the McCarthy Committee. McCarthy became increasingly exasperated and, when Zwicker, in response to a hypothetical question, said that he would not remove from the military a general who originated the order for the honorable discharge of a Communist major, knowing that he was a Communist, McCarthy told Zwicker that he was not fit to wear the uniform of a general.
Q. So McCarthy really did “abuse” Zwicker and impugn his patriotism as the critics have charged?
A. Let’s jump ahead three years and get Zwicker’s own assessment of his testimony on February 18, 1954. At a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 21, 1957, the General stated: “I think there are some circumstances … that would certainly tend to give a person the idea that perhaps I was recalcitrant, perhaps I was holding back, and perhaps I wasn’t too cooperative …. I am afraid I was perhaps overcautious and perhaps on the defensive, and that this feeling … may have inclined me to be not as forthright, perhaps, in answering the questions put to me as I might have been otherwise.”
That wasn’t the only time that General Zwicker was less than forthright. In testimony before the McClellan Committee (formerly the McCarthy Committee) on March 23, 1955, Zwicker denied giving McCarthy staffer George Anastos derogatory information about Irving Peress in their telephone conversation of January 22, 1954. When Anastos and the secretary who had monitored the conversation both testified under oath and contradicted Zwicker, the McClellan Committee forwarded the transcript of the hearing to the Justice Department for possible prosecution of Zwicker for perjury. After sitting on the matter for 19 months, the Justice Department finally, in December 1956, declined to undertake criminal prosecution of Zwicker for “technical” reasons.
On April 1, 1957, the Senate approved a promotion for Zwicker by a vote of 70 to 2, with Senators McCarthy and George Malone opposed. All the members of the Senate had gotten a phone call from the Pentagon or the White House urging them to vote for Zwicker. The recalcitrant General served three more years in the Army before retiring.
Q. Does anyone know who did promote Peress and who told Zwicker to sign the Communist major’s honorable discharge?
A. After studying the 1955 McClellan hearings on the Peress case, Lionel Lokos, in his book Who Promoted Peress, concluded that Colonel H.W. Glattly signed the letter to the Adjutant General, recommending the promotion of Irving Peress; and Major James E. Harris, in the name of the Adjutant General, signed Peress’ letter of appointment to major. As for Peress’ discharge, Army Counsel John Adams and Lieutenant General Walter L. Weible ordered General Zwicker to sign the honorable separation from the Army. The McClellan Committee sharply rebuked Adams for his action, saying that he “showed disrespect for this subcommittee when he chose to disregard Senator McCarthy’s letter of February 1, 1954, and allowed Peress to be honorably discharged on February 2, 1954.”
In its report on the Peress case, the McClellan Committee said that “some 48 errors of more than minor importance were committed by the Army in connection with the commissioning, transfer, promotion, and honorable discharge of Irving Peress.” As a result, the Army made some sweeping changes in its security program, including a policy statement that said “the taking of the Fifth Amendment by an individual queried about his Communist affiliations is sufficient to warrant the issuance of a general discharge rather than an honorable discharge.” That these reforms came about at all was due to the persistence of one Senator, Joe McCarthy, who displayed the courage to expose Peress against the wishes of the Army, the White House, and many of his fellow Republicans.
“No one will ever know,” said Lionel Lokos, “what it cost Senator McCarthy to take the stand he did in the Peress case — what it cost him in terms of popularity and his political future. We only know that the price of asking ‘Who Promoted Peress’ came high and that Senator McCarthy didn’t hesitate to pay that price.”
IV. Army-McCarthy Hearings
Q. What was the gist of the Army-McCarthy Hearings?
A. On March 11, 1954, the Army accused McCarthy and his staff of using improper means in seeking preferential treatment for G. David Schine, a consultant to McCarthy’s committee, prior to and after Schine was drafted into the Army in November 1953. Senator McCarthy countercharged that these allegations were made in bad faith and were designed to prevent his committee from continuing its probe of Communist subversion at Fort Monmouth and from issuing subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board. A special committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Karl Mundt, was appointed to adjudicate these conflicting charges, and the hearings opened on April 22, 1954.
The televised hearings lasted for 36 days and were viewed by an estimated 20 million people. After hearing 32 witnesses and two million words of testimony, the committee concluded that McCarthy himself had not exercised any improper influence in behalf of David Schine, but that Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s chief counsel, had engaged in some “unduly persistent or aggressive efforts” in behalf of Schine. The committee also concluded that Army Secretary Robert Stevens and Army Counsel John Adams “made efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort Monmouth,” and that Adams “made vigorous and diligent efforts” to block subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board “by means of personal appeal to certain members of the [McCarthy] committee.”
In a separate statement that concurred with the special committee report, Senator Everett Dirksen demonstrated the weakness of the Army case by noting that the Army did not make its charges public until eight months after the first allegedly improper effort was made in behalf of Schine (July 1953), and then not until after Senator McCarthy had made it known (January 1954) that he would subpoena members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board. Dirksen also called attention to a telephone conversation between Secretary Stevens and Senator Stuart Symington on March 8, 1954, three days before the Army allegations were made public. In that conversation, Stevens said that any charges of improper influence by McCarthy’s staff “would prove to be very much exaggerated …. I am the Secretary and I have had some talks with the [McCarthy] committee and the chairman, and so on, and by and large as far as the treatment of me is concerned, I have no personal complaint.”
In his 1984 book Who Killed Joe McCarthy?, former Eisenhower White House aide William Bragg Ewald Jr., who had access to many unpublished papers and memos from persons involved in the Army-McCarthy clash, confirms the good relations that existed between McCarthy and Stevens and the lack of pressure from McCarthy in behalf of Schine. In a phone conversation November 7, 1953, the Senator told the Secretary not to give Schine any special treatment, such as putting him in the service and assigning him back to the committee. McCarthy even said that Roy Cohn had been “completely unreasonable” about Schine, that “he thinks Dave should be a general and work from the penthouse of the Waldorf.”
Ewald also reported a phone conversation between Stevens and Assistant Secretary of Defense Fred Seaton on January 8, 1954, in which Stevens admitted that Schine might not have been drafted if he hadn’t worked for the McCarthy Committee. “Of course, the kid was taken at the very last minute before he would have been ineligible for age,” said Stevens. “He is 26, you know. My guess would be that if he hadn’t been working for McCarthy, he probably never would have been drafted.”
Another thing confirmed by Ewald was the secret meeting at the Justice Department on January 21, 1954, when a group of anti-McCarthyites came up with a plan to stop McCarthy either by asking the Republican members of his committee to talk him out of subpoenaing members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board or, if that didn’t work, by drawing up a list of alleged efforts in behalf of David Schine and threatening to make the list public unless McCarthy backed off.
Those at the January 21st meeting were Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Ambassador to the UN Henry Cabot Lodge, Deputy Attorney General William Rogers, White House chief of staff Sherman Adams, White House aide Gerald Morgan, and John Adams. When John Adams inadvertently mentioned this meeting during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and McCarthy wanted to find out more about it, President Eisenhower, on May 17, 1954, issued an executive order forbidding any employee of the Defense Department “to testify to any such conversations or communications or to produce any such documents or reproductions.”
Q. Did the Army-McCarthy Hearings serve any good purpose?
A. Yes. Despite the inordinate focus on trivia and the clever distractions introduced by counsel for the Army Joseph Welch, the hearings alerted the American people as never before to the dangers of Communism. McCarthy’s popularity in opinion polls had declined from 50 percent approval in January 1954 to 35 percent in May, but tens of millions still supported him. You would never know this from reading summaries of the hearings or from watching Point of Order, a 97-minute “documentary” (taken from 188 hours of television footage) that omitted virtually every incident favorable to McCarthy — and there were many of them — and included only those segments where McCarthy did not come across well. By showing McCarthy mainly when he was irritated or expressing his many “points of order,” the film presents a distorted view of him.
Q. How about some examples of clever distractions?
A. Let’s consider three tricks pulled by Joe Welch to divert people’s attention away from the central issue of Communist subversion:
(1) The “Cropped” Photograph. On April 26th, a photo was introduced showing Secretary Stevens posing willingly for a smiling photograph with Private Schine at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on November 17, 1953, a time when Stevens was supposed to be mad at Schine for seeking special treatment from the Army. Welch produced another photo the next day showing the base commander in the picture with Stevens and Schine and said that the first one was “a shamefully cut-down version.” But the innocent deletion of the base commander from the · photograph did not change its basic meaning — that Stevens was not angry with Schine at a time that the Army said he was.
(2) The “Purloined” Document. On May 4th, Senator McCarthy produced a 2¼-page document with the names of 34 subversives at Fort Monmouth, half of whom were still there. The document, which had been given to McCarthy by an intelligence officer in 1953, was a summary of a 15-page report that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had sent on January 26, 1951, to Major General A. R. Bolling, chief of Army Intelligence. Instead of being concerned that the Army had not acted on the FBI report and had not tried to root out the subversives at Fort Monmouth, Welch kept harping on how McCarthy got the summary and where it came from. McCarthy refused to tell him. Welch ascertained that Hoover had not written the 2¼-page document in McCarthy’s possession and termed it “a carbon copy of precisely nothing.” In point of fact, however, the document was an accurate summary of Hoover’s original report, but Welch made it appear that McCarthy was presenting phony evidence.
(3) The Fred Fisher Episode. On June 9th, the 30th day of the hearings, Welch was engaged in baiting Roy Cohn, challenging him to get 130 Communists or subversives out of defense plants “before the sun goes down.” The treatment of Cohn angered McCarthy and he said that if Welch were so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, which Attorney General Brownell had called “the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party.” Welch then delivered the most famous lines from the Army-McCarthy Hearings, accusing McCarthy of “reckless cruelty” and concluding: “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
The fact of the matter was that Fred Fisher’s connection with the National Lawyers Guild had been widely publicized two months earlier. Page 12 of the April 16th New York Times had carried a picture of Fisher and a story about his removal from Welch’s team because of his past association with the NLG. If Mr. Welch was so worried that McCarthy’s remarks might inflict a lifelong “scar” on Fisher’s reputation, why did he dramatize the incident in such histrionic fashion? The reason, of course, was that McCarthy had fallen into a trap in raising the Fisher issue, and Welch, superb showman that he was, played the scene for all it was worth. Was Fred Fisher hurt by the incident? Not at all. He became a partner in Welch’s Boston law firm, Hale & Dorr, and was elected president of the Massachusetts Bar Association in the mid-1970s.
V. The Watkins Committee
Q. So the Senate finally censured Joe McCarthy for his conduct during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, right?
A. Wrong. McCarthy was not censured for his conduct in the Army-McCarthy Hearings or for anything he had ever said or done in any hearings in which he had participated. Here are the facts: After McCarthy emerged unscathed from his bout with the Army, the Left launched a new campaign to discredit and destroy him. The campaign began on July 30, 1954, when Senator Ralph Flanders introduced a resolution accusing McCarthy of conduct “unbecoming a member of the United States Senate.” Flanders, who two months earlier had told the Senate that McCarthy’s “anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority,” had gotten his list of charges against McCarthy from a leftwing group called the National Committee for an Effective Congress.
McCarthy’s enemies ultimately accused him of 46 different counts of allegedly improper conduct and another special committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Senator Arthur Watkins, to study and evaluate the charges. Thus began the fifth investigation of Joe McCarthy in five years! After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the 46 counts. So when a special session of the Senate convened on November 8, 1954, these were the two charges to be debated and voted on:
(1) That Senator McCarthy had “failed to cooperate” in 1952 with the Senate Subcommitee on Privileges and Elections that was looking into certain aspects of his private and political life in connection with a resolution for his expulsion from the Senate; and
(2) That in conducting a senatorial inquiry, Senator McCarthy had “intemperately abused” General Ralph Zwicker.
Many Senators were uneasy about the Zwicker count, particularly since the Army had shown contempt for committee chairman McCarthy by disregarding his letter of February 1, 1954, and honorably discharging Irving Peress the next day. For this reason, these Senators felt that McCarthy’s conduct toward Zwicker on February 18th was at least partially justified. So the Zwicker count was dropped at the last minute and in its place was this substitute charge:
(2) That Senator McCarthy, by characterizing the Watkins Committee as the “unwitting handmaiden” of the Communist Party and by describing the special Senate session as a “lynch party” and a “lynch bee,” had “acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity.”
On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to “condemn” Senator Joseph McCarthy on both counts by a vote of 67 to 22, with the Democrats unanimously in favor of condemnation and the Republicans split evenly.
Q. Was the Senate justified in condemning McCarthy on these counts?
A. No, it was not. Regarding the first count, failure to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, the subcommittee never subpoenaed McCarthy but only “invited” him to testify; one Senator and two staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty towards McCarthy; and the subcommittee, in its final report, dated January 2, 1953, said that the matters under consideration “have become moot by reason of the 1952 election.” No Senator had ever been punished for something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an “invitation” to testify. By the way, the Justice Department and the Bureau of Internal Revenue investigated McCarthy’s finances and taxes for the period 1946 to 1952 and found no violations of the law. On April 19, 1955, the Internal Revenue awarded him a refund of $1,046.75 for overpayment of taxes.
As for the second count, criticism of the Watkins Committee and the special Senate session, McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had expressed outside the Senate. As David Lawrence pointed out in an editorial in the June 7, 1957 issue of U.S. News & World Report, other Senators had accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail, doing the work of the Communists for them, and engaging in a questionable “personal relationship” with Roy Cohn and David Schine, but they were not censured for acting “contrary to senatorial ethics” or for impairing the “dignity” of the Senate.
The chief beneficiary of the Senate destruction of Joe McCarthy was the Communist conspiracy (the Communist Party newspaper the Daily Worker had called the recommendations of the Watkins Committee “good news for America”). Former Communist Louis Budenz, who knew the inner workings of that conspiracy as well as anyone, said that the condemnation of McCarthy leaves the way open “to intimidate any person of consequence who moves against the conspiracy. The Communists made him their chief target because they wanted to make him a symbol to remind political leaders in America not to harm the conspiracy or its world conquest designs.” The history of the past 30 years confirms the tragic truth of Budenz’s statement.
Q. Who were the 22 Republican Senators who voted against the condemnation of Joe McCarthy?
A. More than a dozen Senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties. The 22 men who did put principle above politics were Senators Frank Barrett (Wyoming), Styles Bridges (New Hampshire), Ernest Brown (Nevada), John Marshall Butler (Maryland), Guy Cordon (Oregon), Everett Dirksen (Illinois), Henry Dworshak (Idaho), Barry Goldwater (Arizona), Bourke Hickenlooper (Iowa), Roman Hruska (Nebraska), William Jenner (Indiana), William Knowland (California), Thomas Kuchel (California), William Langer (North Dakota), George Malone (Nevada), Edward Martin (Pennsylvania), Eugene Millikin (Colorado), Karl Mundt (South Dakota), William Purtell (Connecticut), Andrew Schoeppel (Kansas), Herman Welker (Idaho), and Milton Young (North Dakota).
VI. The Years 1955-1957
Q. Did Joe McCarthy become a recluse in the 29 months between his condemnation and his death?
A. No, he did not. He worked hard at his senatorial duties. “To insist, as some have, that McCarthy was a shattered man after the censure is sheer nonsense,” said Brent Bozell, one of his aides at the time. “His intellect was as sharp as ever. When he addressed himself to a problem, he was perfectly capable of dealing with it.”
A member of the minority party in the Senate again, Joe McCarthy had to rely on public speeches to alert the American people to the menace of Communism. This he did in a number of important addresses during those two and a half years. He warned against attendance at summit conferences with the Reds, saying that “you cannot offer friendship to tyrants and murderers … without advancing the cause of tyranny and murder.” He declared that “coexistence with Communists is neither possible nor honorable nor desirable. Our longterm objective must be the eradication of Communism from the face of the earth.”
Senator McCarthy was alone in calling for the use of force to defend the brave Hungarian people against Soviet aggression in 1956. He was virtually alone in warning that the Soviet Union was winning the missile race “because well-concealed Communists in the United States government are putting the brakes on our own guided-missile program.” He was prophetic in urging the Eisenhower Administration to let “the free Asiatic peoples” fight to free their countrymen from Communist slavery in Red China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. “In justice to them, and in justice to the millions of American boys who will otherwise be called upon to sacrifice their lives in a total war against Communism,” said McCarthy, “we must permit our fighting allies, with our material and technical assistance, to carry the fight to the enemy.” This was not permitted and, a decade later, more than half a million American servicemen were fighting in South Vietnam.
Q. Did Joe McCarthy drink himself to death?
A. His enemies would like to have you think that. If McCarthy drank as much as his foes allege, for as many years as they allege, he would have had to be carried from speech to speech and from hearing to hearing, and he would have been unable to string two coherent sentences together. Did McCarthy look or act like a drunk during the 36 days of televised Army-McCarthy Hearings? No alcoholic could have accomplished all that McCarthy did, especially in so few years. Sure, Joe McCarthy drank, and he probably drank too much sometimes, but he did not drink during working hours, and any drinking he did do did not detract one iota from the seriousness of his fight against Communism or from the accuracy of his charges.
In the last two years of his life, McCarthy was greatly disappointed over the terrible injustice his Senate colleagues had done to him, and he certainly had his times of depression. Who wouldn’t after what he had been through? But he also had his times of elation, as when he and his wife adopted a baby girl in January 1957. The picture in Roy Cohn’s book of a smiling Joe McCarthy holding his new daughter is not the picture of a man drowning in alcohol. William Rusher was counsel to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee during 1956 and 1957 and met McCarthy repeatedly on social occasions. “He had at one time been a heavy drinker,” said Rusher of the Senator, “but in his last years was cautiously moderate; he died of a severe attack of hepatitis. He kept right on with a Senator’s usual chores up almost until the end.”
The end came on May 2, 1957 in Bethesda Naval Hospital. Thousands of people viewed the body in Washington, and McCarthy was the first Senator in 17 years to have funeral services in the Senate chamber. More than 30,000 Wisconsinites filed through St. Mary’s Church in the Senator’s hometown of Appleton to pay their last respects to him. Three Senators — George Malone, William Jenner, and Herman Welker — had flown from Washington to Appleton on the plane carrying McCarthy’s casket. “They had gone this far with Joe McCarthy,” said William Rusher. “They would go the rest of the way.”
VII. Some Final Questions
Q. Did McCarthy conduct a “reign of terror” in the 1950s?
A. This is one of two or three big lies that the Left continues to spread about McCarthy. The average American did not fear McCarthy; in fact the Gallup Poll reported in 1954 that the Senator was fourth on its list of most admired men. The only people terrorized by McCarthy were those who had something subversive to hide in their past and were afraid that they might eventually be exposed.
Oh, there was a “reign of terror” in the early Fifties, but it was conducted against Joe McCarthy, not by him. Those who were not afraid to denounce McCarthy week in and week out included the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Life, Walter Lippmann, the Alsop brothers, Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson, the cartoonist Herblock, Edward R. Murrow, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and liberals from all walks of life. Reign of terror? During one 18-month period, the University of Wisconsin invited Eleanor Roosevelt, Norman Cousins, Owen Lattimore, and James Carey — all bitter anti-McCarthyites — to warn the students of McCarthy’s reign of terror.
James Burnham, author of The Web of Subversion, a classic study of Communist penetration into the highest levels of the U.S. government, once reviewed the statistics of the so-called McCarthy terror:
Number of persons killed — zero.
Number of persons wounded or injured — zero.
Number of persons tortured — zero.
Number of persons arrested without warrant — zero.
Number of persons held or imprisoned without trial — zero.
Number of persons evicted, exiled, or deported — zero.
Number of persons deprived of due process — zero.
Q. Most of the books written about McCarthy say that he smeared thousands of innocent people. Is that true?
A. This is impossible since McCarthy never even mentioned thousands of people. At the most, he publicly exposed about 160 persons, all of whom had significant records of collaboration with or support for Communists and/or Communist causes. Detractors of McCarthy, said Roy Cohn, “have to fall back on picayune things about whether he drank and had a liver condition, usually with a total distortion of the facts. They talk about the innocent people he destroyed. I have yet to have them give me one name. I have a standard answer — ‘name one.’ They usually come up with someone who came before some other committee, or Hollywood, or something which was never a focus of a McCarthy investigation.”
Here is one of literally dozens of examples of misinformation about McCarthy that could be cited: An article about Lillian Hellman in Newsweek for July 9, 1984, said that perhaps her most famous lines “were those she wrote in a statement to the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952. ‘I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions,’ she wrote, refusing to testify against her friends at the McCarthy hearings.” Miss Hellman could hardly have testified “at the McCarthy hearings” because there were no McCarthy hearings in 1952 and because Joe McCarthy was a Senator and was never involved in any House Committee hearings dealing with Communist infiltration of the Hollywood film industry. And they accuse McCarthy of getting his facts wrong!
Q. These same books insist that Senator McCarthy never uncovered “a single Communist” in his five-year fight. Is that true?
A. Joe McCarthy was hated and denounced not because he smeared innocent people, but because he identified guilty people. Any list of identified Communists uncovered by McCarthy would have to include Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Owen Lattimore, Edward Rothschild, Irving Peress, and Annie Lee Moss. But that’s not the whole story. McCarthy also exposed scores of others who may not have been identified as Communists, but who certainly were causing harm to national security from their posts in the State Department, the Pentagon, the Army, key defense plants, and the Government Printing Office. At the latter facility, which handled 250,000 pieces of secret and classified printing matter annually, the McCarthy probe resulted in the removal or further investigation by the FBI of 77 employees and a complete revamping of the security system at the GPO.
Was it unreasonable of McCarthy to want government positions filled with persons who were loyal to America, instead of those with Communist-tainted backgrounds? “A government job is a privilege, not a right,” McCarthy said on more than one occasion. “There is no reason why men who chum with Communists, who refuse to turn their backs on traitors, and who are consistently found at the time and place where disaster strikes America and success comes to international Communism, should be given positions of power in government.” The motivation of these people really doesn’t matter. If the policies they advocate continually result in gains for Communism and losses for the Free World, then they should be replaced by persons with a more realistic understanding of the evil conspiracy that has subjugated more than one-third of the world. That’s not McCarthyism, that’s common sense.
Q. Most of the books in the libraries seem to be anti-McCarthy. Are there any pro-McCarthy books?
A. There are indeed, but most of them are out of print or not usually available in libraries. Here is a list: McCarthy and His Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell; McCarthy by Roy Cohn; The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Medford Evans; The Lattimore Story by John Flynn; Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Lokos; three books by McCarthy himself — Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951, McCarthyism: The Fight for America, and America’s Retreat From Victory; and a collection of tributes to McCarthy entitled Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress.
Q. How then would you define McCarthyism?
A. McCarthyism was a serious attempt to remove from positions of influence the advocates of Communism, the willing and unwilling supporters of Communism and Communists, and persons who would prevent the removal of those who give aid and comfort to the enemies of America. Communist conspirators and their friends do not fear those who denounce Communism in general terms; they do greatly fear those who would expose their conspiratorial activities. That is why they hated and fought Joe McCarthy more than any other public figure in this century. That is why they have preserved his name as a club to hold over the head of anyone who dares to expose Communism.
The events of the past 30 years have proved McCarthy right, and those who want to halt the Communist juggernaut today had better know the true story of McCarthyism. “The war against Communism cannot be won by wavering apologists,” said Mrs. J. B. Matthews back in 1961. “Victory begins with a realization that no one who fights Communism — not even a hypothetical god-like perfect man — can escape the liberaloid smear, and that smear image bears no relation to reality.”
Joe McCarthy was a brave and honest man. There was nothing cynical or devious about him. He said and did things for only one reason — he thought they were the right things to say and do. He was not perfect; he sometimes made errors of fact or judgment. But his record of accuracy and truthfulness far outshines that of his detractors. His vindication in the eyes of all Americans cannot come soon enough. Medford Evans put it well when he said: “The restoration of McCarthy … is a necessary part of the restoration of America, for if we have not the national character to repent of the injustice we did him, nor in high places the intelligence to see that he was right, then it seems unlikely that we can or ought to survive.”
* Evidence presented in the other six cases showed that two (Haldore Hanson and Gustavo Duran) had been identified as members of the Communist Party, that three (Dorothy Kenyon, Frederick Schuman, and Harlow Shapley) had extensive records of joining Communist fronts and supporting Communist causes, and that one (Esther Brunauer) had sufficient questionable associations to be dismissed from the State Department as a security risk in June 1952. For further details, see Chapter VII of McCarthy and His Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell.
Senator Joseph McCarthy radio broadcast(s) (1953)
“McCarthy on Trumanism” is a recording of a radio broadcast within which Senator Joseph McCarthy makes accusations regarding former president Harry S Truman. In this program McCarthy also discusses the suspected spies he discovered working at U.S. Army’s top-secret radar research laboratories at Camp Evans, Fort Monmouth. Originally broadcast on November 24, 1953. Program running time: 29:20.
(NOTE: At 13:45 into the program, McCarthy begins discussion of his investigation of Joseph Levitsky and others he accused of making attempts to get people employed at the Signal Corps laboratories at Camp Evans to provide information to the Communists.)
“Truman on McCarthyism” is a recording of a radio broadcast in which President Truman responds to McCarthy’s accusations. Originally broadcast on or shortly after November 24, 1953. Program running time: 22:19.
|McCarthy on Trumanism||20.9 MB||163.9 MB||75.5 MB|
|Truman on McCarthyism||15.9 MB||125.7 MB||51.1 MB||11.0 MB|
NOTE: “Mr. White”: Harry Dexter White (real name Weiss), of course.
The Vindication of Senator Joseph McCarthy
Today as relevant as in his day—
“How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men HIGH in our government are concentrating to DELIVER US TO DISASTER?”
—Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
Nearly fifty years after his death, Senator Joseph McCarthy still is making news—and still is hated by the Left, smeared by the controlled news media and revered by Americans in the know.…
Pat Buchanan: Of ‘Treason” and Tailgunner Joe “America’s young should ask themselves: If Joe McCarthy was such a monster, why did Joe Kennedy back him, the Kennedy girls date him, Robert Kennedy work for him and JFK defend him as a “great patriot” in his year of censure? And why was McCarthy asked to be the godfather to Bobby Kennedy’s firstborn?” McCarthy’s “witches” “Witch-hunt? The high-profile cases cited by McCarthy — Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, and Philip C. Jessup — all ended with the senator’s charges being validated.” Revisionist critics misrepresent McCarthy’s legacy “Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on two defenseless cities of a prostrate nation and sent 2 million Russian prisoners back to Stalin to be murdered in Operation Keelhaul. Yet Truman remains a hero to those who despise McCarthy with an undying hatred.” Sen. McCarthy and the Khazars’ curse “If the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy had been wrong about Communist infiltration in the 1950′s, wouldn’t he have been refuted and forgotten? Instead, 50 years later, media connected to Khazar (Jewish) bankers and their allies continue to vilify him, indicating that he struck a nerve.” The hidden truth about Joseph McCarthy “McCarthy’s enemies—supposed champions of civil liberties—tapped his phone, intercepted his incoming personal mail, placed a paid spy in his office, and illegally released his tax returns to the press (resulting in a large refund!).”
Q. So, was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department?
A. He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave to the Tydings Committee [ see below ] to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State Department at the time of the hearings. The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy’s list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.
McCarthyism: no longer a dirty word “The deciphered Venona cables confirm that the American Communist Party successfully established secret caucuses in government agencies throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s. They prove that 349 Americans had covert ties to Soviet intelligence – much as McCarthy had charged.” Venona Project From the official National Security Agency website. The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors Read excerpts from this book on the Communist infiltration and subversion. Book reviews: Venona and The Haunted Wood “Venona, the product of two American historians, and The Haunted Wood, a collaboration of an American historian and a Russian KGB operative–turned–journalist, provide crushingly authoritative answers to questions that have lingered since the days when the charges and countercharges hurled by ex–Communists and alleged Communists riveted the nation’s attention. How prevalent was the treason committed by Americans on behalf of Stalinist totalitarianism? How pervasive was Communist influence in American government? Above all, who told the truth and who lied?” (Real News 24/7: We obviously do not agree with the reviewer’s conclusions and offer this merely for information value. Indeed, the review largely disproves the conclusions!) McCarthy and his colleagues “Joe McCarthy has made a real and lasting contribution toward the preservation and perpetuation of the free world in his fight against the menace of internal subversion. His death was as much as that of a soldier fighting in the ranks for human liberty and eternal truth as if it had occurred on the field of battle and been inflicted by bullet, bayonet, or shell….”
Communists coined “McCarthyism”“Now to the Communist version of the word ‘McCarthyism,’ which they had just coined.…The first time I actually saw the word in print was in the Daily Worker newspaper. This was the Communist Party newspaper published in New York City which carried orders to American Communists from the Soviet Union.” The real McCarthy record Same author as the one who wrote 40 questions and answers above; same format as above, but includes some different material.
America’s Retreat From Victory“The general picture of our steady, constant retreat from victory, with the same men always found at the time and place where disaster strikes America and success comes to Soviet Russia, would inevitably have caused me, or someone else deeply concerned with the history of this time, to document the acts of those molding and shaping the history of the world over the past decade.” (The first four chapters of McCarthy’s important book outlining foreign policy betrayal during and immediately after World War II.)
Joseph McCarthy speaks in 1954 to the Chicago Irish Fellowship Society (Audio file) A brief (12 minutes) but powerful talk on the fight against treason. The late, great senator in fine form.
“This fight is going to go on…!” —Senator Joseph McCarthyAmerica’s Retreat From Victory
June 3, 2013
I have no use at all for Harris (far as I know) or Rense – but Dick Eastman shines like gold.
Debt Repudiation and the thin-air household dividend to restore stolen purchasing
May 31, 2013
Are there Chinchillas on Mars?
Updated June 1, 2013
A PHOTO FROM MARS – What do you see, a squirrel or a rock? Note the shadow under the head and body.
Your “Chinchilla on Mars” posting is a needless, pointless, frivolous distraction that will damage your credibility… The “chinchilla” is a rock that has features somewhat reminiscent of a chinchilla… Please remove the posting, or at least mitigate it by saying that it is probably a rock.
- Robert D. Pickar, San Pedro, California
(Note: Pickar’s father, Kenneth A. Pickar, is a professor at Caltech, the private institution that runs the Mars mission.)
A slide from Ken Pickar’s 2010 presentation on Caltech and the Mars mission. The rodent in the “Mars photo” raises the obvious question: Is the Mars mission really on Mars, or is it a massive scam?
The most popular science story on FoxNews.com on May 29 was an article entitled “‘Mars rat’ spied by NASA’s Curiosity rover.” The Fox News article is about a photograph taken on September 28, 2012, by NASA’s rover that is supposedly roaming around on the surface of Mars. The photograph clearly shows what appears to be chinchilla-like rodent between a couple rocks. This raises the question, is the NASA rover really on Mars or is it roaming around the Atacama Desert in Chile, or some other Mars-like terrain on planet Earth? Having spent untold billions of dollars, is NASA duping us about Mars? Where did this chinchilla come from?
There are plenty of deserts, like this one in Nevada, that resemble the barren and rocky terrain seen in the Mars mission. Is the Mars mission a billion-dollar hoax?
After getting a comment asking me to remove the posting, I looked more closely into the nature of the rodent seen in the photograph. The person who asked me to remove the posting is Robert D. Pickar of San Pedro. His father, Kenneth Arnold Pickar of Rolling Hills (a gated enclave of Palos Verdes), is a visiting professor at Caltech. Caltech runs the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is managing the Mars mission. Kenneth Pickar, who has been at Caltech since 1998, is on the President’s Advisory Board for the JPL.
The JPL is a Federally funded research and development center managed and operated by Caltech under a contract from NASA. In fiscal year 2012, the JPL’s budget was nearly $1.5 billion (Between 2008-2010, Caltech received about $1.74 billion per year on average from U.S. budget.) If the people who run the Mars mission are so concerned about my chinchilla posting I had better make sure I have my rodents straight.
While I agree with the criticism that the animal may not be a chinchilla, it certainly does not look like a rock. The little fellow looks furry and has eyes and ears and a tail. It actually looks more like a white-tailed antelope squirrel than a chinchilla. The white-tailed antelope squirrel is a species of rodents commonly found in the deserts of California and Nevada. The first photograph below is from the Mars mission.
The desert rodent seen in the Mars photo, which I originally called a chinchilla, actually looks more like a white-tailed antelope squirrel, native to the deserts of California.
The white-tailed antelope squirrel carries his tail up on his back, which is what the rodent in the photo seems to be doing. Is the Caltech mission to Mars actually happening in a desert in the American Southwest?
“‘Mars rat’ spied by NASA’s Curiosity rover,” FoxNews.com, May 29, 2013
Original full size photo, NASA, September 28, 2012
White-tailed Antelope Squirrel, sibr.com, May 31, 2013
Q&A and Comment Forum
Latest Comment: Chris,
You’re a great journalist who has built up great moral credibility with your pioneering 9-11 research. Your 9-11 research passes technical muster. Your “chinchilla on Mars” posting is a needless, pointless, frivolous distraction that will damage your credibility.
The “chinchilla” is a rock that has features somewhat reminiscent of a chinchilla. It is just like the “Face on Mars” from the 1970′s Viking missions, which were, of course, just a configuration of hills. Unless you can show that the “chinchilla” is moving, or otherwise alive, this posting is enormously damaging and will take away from YEARS of hard-won credibility (you were TASED by police and forced to flee the country!) and reduce you to a “giggle-factor”.
Please remove the posting, or at least mitigate it by saying that it is probably a rock.
Best Regards, Robert
Robert D. Pickar
1157 W. 10th St
San Pedro, CA 90731
Bollyn Responds: This comment comes from Robert Daniel Pickar, the son of Kenneth Arnold Pickar. Kenneth Pickar is a visiting professor at Caltech. Caltech runs the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which operates the Mars mission for NASA. I responded to Robert asking him if his father’s connections to Caltech, the JPL, and NASA have anything to do with his request.
Robert Pickar responded:
Not only did my father, Kenneth Pickar, NOT ask me to write the email to you, he doesn’t know about it, it has NOTHING to do with him, and he will be LIVID with me if he finds out about your post! … I want this to be a productive conversation, and I believe that you are a decent person, so I ask you, will you remove this entirely slanderous and off-base posting about me and my father? What will it require for you to accept that this is in error and must ethically be removed?
I certainly don’t want to slander anyone. I am merely pointing out the fact that the person who asked me to remove the posting about the Mars mission is the son of a professor at the small private research institution that is running the operation. Kenneth Pickar, originally from the Bronx, has had a long career working with companies and institutions that work with NASA. He even worked and taught at the Technion in Haifa, Israel, in the early 1970s. He now lives in the Golden State in a multi-million dollar home in the gated community of Rolling Hills, near Palos Verdes. All of this information comes from his own CV and is not meant be slanderous in any way.
See Ken Pickar’s CV here:
Kenneth Arnold Pickar of Caltech
A slide from Ken Pickar’s 2010 presentation on Caltech running the Mars mission
Ken Pickar (3rd from left) has close ties to the state of Israel. Here, in December 2006, he visits the Israeli coast with Joseph Shappir, Head of Department of Applied Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
|Wagging the Moondoggie|
|Apollo 1 Launch Date: October 1, 2009||Apollo 2 Launch Date: October 1, 2009||Apollo 3 Launch Date: October 1, 2009||Apollo 4 Launch Date: October 1, 2009|
|Apollo 5 Launch Date: October 1, 2009||Apollo 6 Launch Date: October 13, 2009||Apollo 7 Launch Date: November 21, 2009
||Apollo 8 Launch Date: November 22, 2009
|Apollo 9 Launch Date: November 29, 2009
||Apollo 10 Launch Date: December 7, 2009
||Apollo 11 Launch Date: December 30, 2009
||Apollo 12 Launch Date: February 23, 2010
|Apollo 13 Launch Date: July 13, 2010||Apollo 14 Launch Date: May 12, 2011|
May 29, 2013
The Fight Against USURY
by Jüri Lina
Lending money at interest has been condemned by men such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Seneca and Cicero, early fathers of the Christian church; the majority of popes and councils up to 1830; likewise modern authors such as Goethe and Wagner.
The fight against usury goes back to the earliest known beginnings of civilization. From the days of Sumer to the present, decent people have struggled against this tool of the forces of darkness. Charging interest was condemned by the ancient Greek, philosophers. Money was to them something dead; something dead cannot be allowed to grow. Aristotle wrote in his work Politics (Book One, part X): “The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. . . Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.”
Up until the end of the Middle Ages it was forbidden for Christians to charge interest. To charge interest on a loan was tantamount to murder and robbery. Later, those who charged interest were treated as heretics.
Martin Luther stated plainly: “All usurers are thieves and belong in the gallows.” Everyone who lent money at an interest rate of 5 to 6 percent was considered to be a usurer. During the Middle Ages only Jews were allowed to lend money with interest: In Deuteronomy a Jew is forbidden to charge interest from his brother. But the goy (non-Jew) was not his brother. And to Jewish extremists plunder was not unfamiliar.
In ancient Babylonia the legal interest rate was 30 percent on money and 50 percent on grain. In Assyria there was no upper limit for interest rate. The farmers were often so deep in debt that they starved to death along with their families. This led to ruthless exploitation of the soil.
Martin Luther, the founding father of the Lutheran Protestant Church, and others of his era condemned usury, Fiery preacher Jakob Strauss conducted a violent campaign against usury and tithes. Thomas Muentzer, an unruly genius, combined his own ingenious liturgical reforms with a program of holy war.
In the city of Uruk in Sumer there lived two brothers who lent money with interest. When a borrower no longer could repay his loan, he lost his house and had to start working for free for the brothers. The slave could be lent also to other employers. This is a classical example of economic slavery.
Almost 3,700 years ago the ruler of Babylon, Hammurabi (1848-1805 B.C.). who was descended from the Amorite dynasty, forbade through his legal acts (containing 93 paragraphs) the taking of interest on interest, which meant that the borrower had to give in addition to the assets he had borrowed the same amount in goods or money. Anyone who broke the rule was severely punished, though very few abided by it. The 282 statutes of Hammurabi, written in Akkadian, were found in 1901-02 at excavations at Susa in ancient Elani (now Iran).
The tribune Tiberius Gracchus of the Roman Empire tried in 133 B.C. to reduce the power of the moneychangers through stricter laws against usury and to limit the legal land ownership to lugeri (about 600 acres) per family. He was murdered the same year.
In 48 B.C. Julius Caesar deprived the moneychangers of the right to coin money and had it done himself. With a larger money supply he was able to erect many public buildings. Common people adored Caesar for his contribution to making money more available. After the murder of Caesar there was an end to the abundance of money. The money supply was reduced by 90 percent. Taxes rose sky-high. As a result most people lost their land and their homes. The slander of Caesar goes on even today.
The Freemasons wanted to acquire as much wealth as possible in order to serve their demons during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Irish economist Margrit Kennedy has pointed out that a 1 percent loan is doubled in 70 years. A 3 percent loan with accumulated interest doubles in only 24 years. A 6 percent loan doubles in 12 years, and at 12 percent the amount is doubled in just sis years.
If anyone had lent one cent in A.D. 1 and charged a 4 percent interest; in 1750 he could have bought gold weighing as much as the whole Earth. (At 5 percent interest it would have been possible as early as the year 1403.) [n 1990 he would have been able to buy 12,246 such ''nuggets."
These extreme examples show how madly interest damages each country's economy.
After the so-called French Revolution the use of paper money was widespread.
The gold traders began practicing economic fraud to become even more powerful. They lent secretly part of the gold that had been deposited with them and kept the interest they made on such illegal loan. The gold traders then issued more receipts (bank notes) of gold deposits than they had gold, then lent these notes and charged interest on them Far more money was lent than what the creditor had cover for. Soon these money crooks lent as much as up to 10 times more than they had gold deposited.
This breach of trust has become common in all areas in the world of the Freemasons. The American banks have the right to lend 10 times more money than they actually have. This means that their interest actually is close to 80 percent and not 8 percent, which is officially claimed. The Masonic bankers create money out of nothing and force us to pay interest thereon.
The Prieure de Sion initiated, with the aid of the moneychangers (above all the Portuguese Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel, who lived in the Netherlands, and Antonio Fernandez Moses Carvajal), the insurrection of 1642, led by Oliver Cromwell, which in turn led to the first republic (commonwealth) in England in 1649. In the year 1643 a large group of rich Jews came to England. They met with the Portuguese ambassador in London, Antonio de Souza, a Maranno, where further moves were discussed. All their actions were coordinated by Carvajal.
Having deposed and executed Charles I in 1649, naming himself as dictator in 1653, Cromwell became bloodthirsty and hostile to cultural development, letting the moneychangers strengthen their financial power. Under the puritanical rule of the Lord Protector Cromwell, music and other cultural activities were practically banned. Even colorful garments were forbidden.
In November of 1688 (under the sign of the scorpion) the Catholic king of England James II (Stuart) was overthrown through a well-organized invasion financed by the moneyed Jews of Amsterdam and led by the Prieure de Sion and the Orange Order. The king was exiled to France and in February of 1689 William of Orange, the prince of Nassau, was put upon the English throne by means of a coup d'etat, which became known as the Glorious Revolution. Even official historians admit that the people did not participate in this coup.
England at that time was in poor condition after more than 50 years of war with France and the Netherlands, and the new king, William III (of Orange), asked several powerful bankers for help. They provided the English state with a loan of 1.25 million pounds but only delivered 750,000 pounds. The terms of the loan were as follows; the names of the lenders were not to be revealed, and these were guaranteed the right to found the Bank of England, whose directors were ensured to establish a gold reserve so as to be able to issue loans to a value of 10 pounds for each pound deposited gold in the bank vault. They also were allowed to consolidate the national debt and secure payment for annuity and interest through direct Taxation of the people.
The privately owned Bank of England was established in 1694 with absolute control over the currency (the right to issue bank notes). The lending of money on usury was able to continue at an even larger scale. Thus the English people suffered a huge national debt. Taxes had to be raised and prices doubled. To the Masonic bankers it was necessary to have a monopoly on money issuing. That way they were able to make enormous profits and also control political processes.
The Bank of England was allowed to lend money to an amount 10 times the security the lender put. up. With 5 percent interest it only took two years for the bank to earn back an amount equal to the original security.
By the year 1698 the national debt had risen from one and a quarter million pounds to 16 million. In 1815 it was 885 million pounds and in 1945 it had grown to 22.5 billion pounds. By 1995 the national debt had risen to more than 300 billon pounds, equal to 45 percent of GNP.
Not even the Macmillan Committee, which was appointed in 1929, managed to find out who governed the Bank of England. Only one name has leaked out—that of Rothschild. All great wars have been started and financed by the economic conglomerate emanating from one single banking family—the Rothschilds.
In the Netherlands, secret societies bad been able to found a central bank as early as 1609. About 40 of the world's most important central banks were established in a similar way as that of the Bank of England. In that way the Masonic bankers ruled the long-term development in the world with loan interest as a method, the central banks as middlemen, the politicians as dummies and the people as ignorant wage slaves. The freemason-controlled banks thus can govern political life by acting without being seen. The English people strengthened the power of these invisible Freemasons through paying taxes during three centuries. Central banks were supposed to keep the economy stable.
In reality it works quite differently.
Benjamin Franklin wrote of the British colonies in North America in the 1750s: "Nowhere on Earth does one find a happier and more well-being people." He explained that this was due to that "we in the colonies make our own currency," called "colonial scrip." He further explained: "By issuing our own currency we can control its buying power, and we are not obliged to pay interest to anyone."
In these British colonies in New England, there was a wealth contrasting sharply to the poverty and misery in England. There was enough money, and it was definitely interest free.
When the Masonic bankers in England heard Franklin's speech to the British Parliament, they made sure that Parliament forbade the colonies to use their own financial system and instead demanded they use interest money in gold and silver. Only an insufficient amount of this money was to be available. The money supply was reduced in half, and the colonies were forced to borrow money from the Bank of England. The result was steep interest and price increases. Within a year the streets were full of unemployed people.
In American schoolbooks the reason given for the outbreak fif the Revolutionary War was the tea tax. but according to Franklin "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax" (of 2 percent) on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." The result of the influence of the English banks on the British Parliament was horrendous poverty in America. When this situation had been created, it was easy to get people ready for war which the Freemasons did with satisfaction. They wanted a safe base for their future global activities.
Among the men who drew up the Constitution of 1787, there were those who thought one should protect oneself against the financial drain of the international bankers. Therefore Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution reads: "Congress shall have power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof..."
Alexander Hamilton, a Freemason and secretary of finance in the government of George Washington, and also the agent of the international financiers, ordered the establishment of a privately owned union bank and the introduction of interest money. His argument was simple; "A limited national debt would he a blessing to a nation " He considered it dangerous for the government to issue its own currency.
Thus the United States got its first central bank in 1791. It was privately owned but had a contract running for only 20 years. It was not renewed when it expired. Andrew Jackson referred to the fact that the Constitution had given Congress the right to issue currency in sufficient quantity but not transfer this right to others.
The historian Richard Boesen disclosed that, the Freemason Nathan Rothschild (1777-1836), who in 1806 had founded his bank in London and who partly financed the Napoleonic wars through the Bank of England, subsequently issued an ultimatum—either the contract be renewed or there would be war. Jackson called the Masonic bankers a hunch of thieves and promised to exterminate them, Rothschild gave his own orders: "Teach those insolent Americans a lesson. Force them back to a colonial status."
The British government began to limit, the American sea trade and checked the American expansion in Canada. President James Madison in 1812 had no other choice but to let Congress declare war on England. The intention of the leader of the Freemasons, Rothschild, was to lay waste the country to such an extent that, the Americans would be forced to seek financial aid. Great Britain, however, failed to regain the lost colonies, and the United States failed to occupy Canada. The war was actually fought in 1814.
Many lives were lost, but Rothschild did not triumph this time. The renewed central bank contract was again suspended in 1836 during Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829-1837), despite the fact that he was grand master of Tennessee. The central bank was abolished.
Even so European bankers and their American agents managed to exercise an extensive control of the American monetary system. Gustavus Myers admits in his book History of the Great American Fortunes (1910): "Under the surface the Rothschilds had for a long period of time a direct influence by dictating the American financial laws. The legal records show that they were the ones in control of the old Bank of the United Slates."
In American history books there is nothing about the role of the banks in the first and second American wars of independence (that is 1775-83 and 1812-1814). Neither is there anything about the debt-free "greenbacks" that Abraham Lincoln issued. Their existence is only verified by a few encyclopedias.
To finance the American Civil War, which broke out on April 12,1861, President Abraham Lincoln was forced to utilize the right of the Congress to issue its own currency. Between the years 1862 to 1864, 450 million interest-free "greenbacks'" were printed. Lincoln promised at his re-election in 1864 to begin fighting the banks as soon as the war was over. Lord Goschen, the representative of the financial world, wrote in The London Times: "If this financial policy becomes permanent, the government can without expenses acquire necessary monetary provision. It can pay its debt and repay its loans without debt. It will have enough money to trade (on the open market). It is going to be more healthy than any other (before) in history. If we do not overthrow this government, it will overthrow us."
The North during the Civil War was financed by the Rothschilds through their American agent August Belmont (actually Schoenberg} and the South by the Erlanger brothers who were related to the Rothschild family.
The Civil War ended on April 9, 1865, and international Freemasonry got busy to remove President Lincoln.
The assassination of Lincoln was carried out by John Wilkes Booth (Botha), a Freemason of the 33rd degree, on April 15, 1865 in Washington, D.C., only six days after the end of the Civil War. Izola Forrester, Booth's granddaughter, stated in her book This One Mad Act (1937), that Booth belonged to the lodge Knights of the Golden Circle and also Giuseppe Mazzini's "revolutionary" movement Young America. Izola Forrester revealed in detail that the Freemasons were involved hi the assassination of the president. Booth was soon eliminated.
The above-mentioned Masonic lodge Knights of the Golden Circle was mixed up in the plot. This name had begun to be seen in the press, and so the Freemason leader Albert Pike in 1866 decided to rename it the Ku Klux Klan; "kyklos" in Greek meaning "circle."
It was officially founded as a new organization in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee. In 1882 it was banned. The present group with the name name was founded in 1915 by William Joseph Simmons and thus has not grown out of the Masonic lodge that existed in the 1860s and 1870s.
After the demise of Lincoln, things were "normalized." The amount of money in circulation, which in 1866 amounted to $1,9 billion or $50.46 per capita, had by 1876 been reduced to $605 million or $14,80 per person.
As a result there were 56,446 bankruptcies in 10 years and a loss of $2 billion. In 1887 the Masonic bankers reduced the money amount further to $6.67 per head. The Irish writer Margrit Kennedy stated in the book Interest and Inflation Free Money that the interest rate always goes up when there is a shortage of money. This in turn leads to bankruptcies and worsens the unemployment rate.
In American schoolbooks it is claimed that it was all for the good that the Democratic candidate for president in 1896, Wil-ham Jennings Bryan, was not elected, since he was against the gold footing and the "sound money" of the banks (that is money that creates debt). Bryan explained in his "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention, in Chicago on July 9. 1896: "When we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished."
Bryan was not elected, and 17 years later, in 1913. Congress passed a bill (introduced by the Masonic President Woodrow Wilson), that purported to repeal the right of the Congress to issue currency and transferred this right to a "federal reserve" funding system.
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, father of the famous aviator, had the following to say about this: "When the president signs it, the invisible government of the money brokers has become legalized. The worst legal crime of the century is a fact. The day of reckoning is only a few years removed."
The man who played a very important role in providing the United States again with a central bank was Paul Warburg. He was a German immigrant, arriving in America together with his brother Felix. Both brothers became partners in tiie banking house Kuhn, Loeb & Co. led by the Illuminatus Jacob Schiff, who also belonged to B'nai B'rith. The Warburgs were supported by Nelson Aldrich (later to become grandfather to Nelson and David Rockefeller), known as the handyman in the Senate of John Pierpoint Morgan. The family of (Samuel Moses) Del Branco in 1559 moved from Italy to Germany taking the name Warburg. In 1798 the family founded the bank of M.M. Warburg & Co.
The 1907 financial panic had been caused by Masonic banker J.P. Morgan, historian Fredrick Lewis Allen concluded in 1949. This was used as pretense to show that there was a need for a central banking system.
Frank Vanderlip, who worked for Rockefeller, admitted in his memoirs: "I do not believe I exaggerate in saying that our secret excursion to JekyI Island was the actual beginning of that which eventually became the Federal Reserve System."
During the aforementioned JekyI Island meeting at the end of 1910 Paul Warburg had emphasized that the term "central bank" should be avoided under all circumstances. It was decided to present the project as a Regional Reserve System.
It was made sure that Morgan's candidate, the Freemason Thomas Woodrow Wilson, was elected president. His campaign was financed by Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, New York Times publisher Adolph Ochs and other powerful Jewish financiers and Freemasons.
The high-ranking Freemason Edward Mandel House, by many historians considered the "actual" president of the United States during Wilson's administration, proposed in his novel Philip Dru: Administrator (1912), which was published anonymously, a transition to a progressive income tax and a central bank. These requirements were known from the Illuminati five-point program. House was in favor of forming a world government and adopting the kind of socialism Marx dreamed of. To accomplish this he was willing to use political fraud.
The Federal Reserve bill was presented the night of December 22. 1913, when most of the members of the congressional committee were asleep. That same day the bill hastily was pushed through the House of Representatives and the Senate, President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and control over money supply was transferred from Congress to private Masonic bankers. Four times earlier the American people had managed to get rid of a central bank, but not the fifth time
The Federal Reserve Act was hailed as the victory of democracy over the money trusts, which was hardly the case. Paul Warburg immediately began working at the Federal Reserve for a salary substantially less than that he received as a banker. Neither the president, members of Congress nor the secretary of treasury have any authority over the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve System is actually a cartel of 13 large private banks, of which the Bank of New York is the most important.
President Woodrow Wilson allowed the national debt to grow from $1 billion to $455 billion. Interest became the third largest post of the federal budget.
The United States borrowed up to $4 trillion from various private banks in 1992. At the same time the deficit was $285 billion. In 1991 another 2 million people were registered as poor in the United States. The national debt was slightly less than $1 trillion in 1980: in 1995 it was $5 trillion. The 32.9 million Americans who in the year 2002 lived in poverty were 1.3 million more than those of 2000 (31.6 million).
The economist Milton Friedman is convinced that the economic collapse of 1929 took place because the Federal Reserve System refused to buy government bonds, which would have given the banks more cash, and thus it, caused the monetary crash, which in tarn led to the deep economic crisis.
In the 1810s the Freemasons had been brought into Europe in order to prepare their socialistic revolutions. Particularly bad was the situation on Guernsey in 1815, one of the Channel Islands. Less than half the size of Jersey, it enjoys a mild and humid climate and fertile soil. People had no money to buy things; production stopped and workers went idle. Bankruptcy was near, since taxes to England and interest to lie creditors could not be paid, and no new loans were granted. The situation was desperate. People were beginning to leave the island and emigrate to Australia.
Paul Warburg, left, born in Germany in 1868. came to the United States for the purpose of "reforming" the financial system. In 1895, he married a daughter of Mr. Loeb, Jacob H Schiff (enter) also married a daughter of Mr. Loeb. The name of "Sen. Nelson Aldrich" (right) was, many years ago, a synonym for the Money Power. Aldrich was a leader on tariff and financial matters. He was desirous of the prosperity of the country, but that "prosperity" was written in banking balances. These were three of the top representatives of the organized usury of their era.
In 1815 Guernsey needed a new market hall. There was no money. Then somebody proposed that the island should avail itself of its ancient prerogative and issue its own interest-free money. At first the proposal was turned down, but as they urgently needed 5,000 pounds and only had 1,000 pounds in hand, the Bailiff Daniel de Lisle Brock in 1816 decided to issue 4,000 pounds in one-pound interest-free Guernsey state notes. This was in addition to the current supply of English pounds, which two main banks were circulating on the island already.
Work was begun on the market hall, everything being paid for with this new money. When the hall was finished, customers arrived, and business was better than expected. By 1822 the market hall was paid for. The 4,000 one-pound notes were destroyed. The first project with the new money was so successful that it was soon followed by others. Next a new road was needed; there was gravel, stone and plenty of labor—but no money to pay for it. In all, the states issued 55,000 pounds' worth of notes, which paid for the rebuilding of the market. A new school was built, then several more, the whole surroundings of the market hall were renewed, and several other public buildings were constructed, as well as widening of the streets. A new harbor was built along with the best new roads in Europe and sewers. The sum was paid for with taxation, and the notes were again destroyed. All these projects provided employment and economic stimulation.
In 1827 de Lisle Brock was able to speak of "the improvements which are the admiration of visitors and which contribute so much to the joy, the health and well-being of the inhabitants." Things had certainly improved since 1815. It is significant that the great depression never troubled Guernsey. There was no unemployment, and the income tax was 10 pence on the pound. Things got even better. The import of expensive English flour was reduced. The money supply never exceeded 60,000 pounds. Unemployment was practically nonexistent. Guernsey became a prosperous island community. But the Freemasons disliked this paradise, for fear that the idea should spread to other parts of Europe. In that case they would no longer be able to continue their destructive projects.
In 1830 the banks launched a counterattack and began to flood the island with their own notes. The bankers Finkelstein & Go, of London were the first to open an office on the island. There they started their propaganda for "better money," "real money." People believed this hogwash, which resulted in money shortage and loan applications in the banks. De Lisle Brock fought like a lion to save the island's sound economy and high standard of living—but to no avail. The intrigues and undermining work of the Freemasons steered the island economy over to the banks and their exploitation.
The Guernsey example of 1816 to 1837 speaks for itself. We can do without Masonic economy and do much better. But to try to do away with interest is considered the worst possible crime against humanity.
By 1837, 55,000 pounds had been put into circulation by the government for the primary purpose of local projects such as the sea walls, the roads, a new marketplace, a church and a college. These 55,000 pounds more than doubled the money supply, but there was no inflation.
In 1914, while the British restricted their own money supply, Guernsey issued more—another 140,000 pounds over the next four years. By 1958, over 500,000 pounds of interest-free money was in circulation on Guernsey, and still no inflation.
By 1990, there was a total of 6.5 million pounds in circulation, issued interest free. There was no public debt as in the rest of Britain, which was still paying for its war debts. And yet on Guernsey, prosperity was very much evident everywhere.
It was nothing new. In 1793, Liverpool suffered from extreme cash flow problems, and solved this by creating out of nothing by an act of Parliament some 300,000 pounds of non-repayable money, which was used for public works with great benefit to the city and its people. This issue of money by the Liverpool Corporation allevial.ed the immediate debt crisis.
On June 30,1934, the London magazine New Britain published a statement by the Freemason and former Prime Minister David Lloyd George: "Great Britain is a slave under the international financial powers."
The Masonic bankers during the last 25 years have lent money to the governments of the industrial nations, which find it harder and harder to repay their enormous debt. The private sector has become exactly that much richer. This monetary power has enough money to stop any intransigent politicians. Popularly elected politicians no longer have any means of conducting the policies they wish. They cannot take back their power until the debts are paid. For every dollar borrowed, the politicians relinquish more power. The developing countries are in much worse situation. They are not even able to pay interest on their loans.
During 1982-1990 the banks of the industrial nations received $1,345 trillion in interest and annuity from these poor countries.
The Argentine-German economist Silvio Gesell (1862-1930) wished to introduce "free money." Margrit Kennedy relates in her book Interest and Inflation Free Money (1988) how adherents to Gesll's theory of a free economy in the 1930s made several attempts with interest-free currency in various countries, including Germany, Switzerland, Spain and the United Slates. Particularly successful was the model used in the small town of Woergl in the Tirol in Austria. In 1932 the ideas described m Gesell's book Die natwerlicke Wirtschaftsordnung (The Natural Economic Order, 1916) were introduced
In August 1932 the town council of Woergl issued their own bank notes, called work certificates, to a value of 32,000 schillings. Backed by an equivalent amount of ordinary schillings in the bank, the town put 12,600 work certificates into circulation. The fee on the use of the money was 1 percent per month or 12 percent per year. This fee had to be paid by the person who had the banknote at the end of the month, in the form of a stamp worth 1 percent of the note glued to its back.
The town paid for wages and building materials with this money. A ski-slope was built: streets were renewed as well as the canal system. They built bridges, improved roads and public services, and paid salaries and for materials with this money, which was accepted by the butcher, the shoemaker, the baker, by everyone.
The small fee made everyone put this money into circulation before using one's "real" money. Within a year 32,000 work certificates had been in circulation 463 times and thus had made possible the exchange of goods and services to value of 14,816,000 schillings. In comparison to the sluggish national currency it cmrulated eight limes as fast. Unemployment was reduced by 25 percent within a year. When, however. 130 communities in Austria began to be interested in adopting this model the Austrian National Bank on September 1. 1933, pro-liibited the printing of any local currency.
Unemployment returned, prosperity disappeared, and the situation was "nonnalizedv" that is, Freemasouized.
Interest charges are always included in today's prices, which makes all goods and services very expensive and leaves very little money in the wallet. The economic historian John King has pointed out that because of interest, businesses must constantly raise their prices. This is camouflaged as inflation. He recommended abolishing interest as soon as possible, so as to avoid economic catastrophe. Everyone must now help pay interest. It is included in all prices—about 77 percent of rental rates, for instance. Taxes and other fees and imposts add up. Thus we have become slaves of the bankers. All goods would be only half as expensive without interest payments. According to the Swedish historian Herman Lindqvist, the Freemasons decided in the 1810s that wages should be fixed at the poverty level. Such an attitude shows an enormous contempt for ordinary people. Between the years 1860 and 1910 almost a million Swedes left for America in connection with several years of famine, poverty and difficulties in providing for themselves.
During the Middle Ages conditions were much better than the Masonic myths claim. It has been calculated that a Saxony bricklayer, in addition to free food, made, in today's currency, at least 26,000 marks a month. Craftsmen normally received various benefits in addition to their wages. Despite the high wages, working hours were short, normally eight hours a day, and at work five and a half days a week. Minng journeymen in Saxony only worked six hours a day. Not until 1479 did they put in an extra hour. Often the journeymen enjoyed a free Monday, called "blue Monday," usually without wage reduction. This was terminated in Sweden with the 1669 guild order.
So as not to be confused with noblemen, craftsmen in Freiburg, in Saxony, were advised not to wear gold jewelry and velvet and satin clothes, even though they could well afford all this. The fact that the economy and cultural life flourished was due to the bracteate coins, which were the basis of a system with continuous withdrawal of coins, since they often broke. Withdrawal occurred thrice yearly and also served as taxation. Using old coins was not permitted. No one wanted to hang on to "bad" money, so as not to make a loss, since by exchange of 12 (old) coins one received only nine (new) ones. The economy prospered because the effect of interest-generating money was not present. There was to be no interest charged. For the frail, the old and the sick there were sick houses, and the rich usually provided housing, clothing and free meals for the poor. Wealth was relatively evenly distributed at all levels of society.
All this disappeared when the Masonic bankers took control of the economy. From then on, no one could afford a decent life. To enable people to stand this misery, the lie that things were much worse before is propagated, which is certainly not true.
The current interest system makes it possible for those that already have money to get even richer, while those in need find it increasingly hard to make ends meet. From 1968 to 1982 the national income of West Germany increased by 300 percent, while the interest on the national debt increased by 1,160 percent In 1982 that interest amounted to 29 billion DM. When interest is abolished, inflation vanishes. Kennedy stressed in her book that the income tax must also be abolished. The government will have to be satisfied with a very low VAT; otherwise the gray economy will grow. As of now interest rates go up when there is not enough money available.
The European Community during the years 1982-88 lost up to 735,000 jobs due to the debt crisis, while the United States lost 1.8 million jobs during the same period.
The Swedish national debt was 1.4 trillion crowns in the fall of 1997, which makes Sweden more debt-ridden than either Brazil or Argentina. Interest on the national debt was 111 billion kronor yearly, which is about 40 billion more than the cost of old-age benefits. Every Swede owed various banks 158,558 crowns each in 1997. Half of Swedish national income goes to pay interest. Twenty-five percent of the export income went to support of the national debt in 1990. The head of the central bank, Bengt Dennis, said: "In the circles where I move, it is expected that Sweden keeps a high interest rate."
In the beginning of the 1990s the bankers Salomon Brothers, which had provided the Swedish, government with huge loans, demanded that the Swedish crown be devalued. The government complied.
Argentina went bankrupt in the spring of 2002, having a national debt of $132 billion. Two Jewish banks (Banco de Patricios and Banco de Mayo; collapsed in 1998 due to the owners' criminal activities. This was a final blow to the national economy.
The Italian national debt in the summer of 2001 was astronomically 2,391,663,000.000.000 lire ($145,831,500,000), roughly equivalent to 105 percent of the GNP.
The sultanate of Brunei in northern Borneo has free schools and free medical care. There is no tax and no VAT, but the standard of living is very high. Interest rates are very low. The country has enormous amounts of oil and gas, which is exported and has given them large incomes. The sultan, Muda Hassanal Bolkiah. is one of the richest men in the world. His assets are roughly estimated at $20 billion.
Norway also has oil and gas, but the politicians do not wish to abolish the income tax and other charges. Prices are horribly high: medical care means long lines.
On May 1, 1998, exactly 222 years after the founding of the order of the Illuminati (222 being a third of 666. which in turn tsa third of 1998), the European Central Bank was established, actually a cartel of private banks. All of the people shall be in debt through taxation. The Masonic bankers are thus trying to realize the Knights Templars' ancient idea of creating a European super state by means of the banking system.
The Danish "no" to the "euro" at a referendum in September 2000 and the Swedish "no" in September 2003 showed, however, that not everything goes as planned. One does not have to be a prophet to see that the euro does not stabilize the economy, though one must not say it out aloud. Bernard Connolly, who was head of the department of currency policy at the European Commission in Brussels, in 1996 published a book, The Rotten Heart of Europe, claiming that fixed exchange rates and the monetary union (EMU) would lead to instability and growing unemployment. He felt the result would be horrifying. Connolly was summarily fired.
At a visit to Sweden in August 2003, Connolly stressed that the introduction of the euro would lead to economic disaster and to the fall of the European democracies. He warned that the euro is used as a pretext for forming an economic, political and military super state.
The problems have become worse in southern Europe. Portugal for instance is already at the brink of a political breakdown, and riots in the streets are not far away. This will then spread to the rest of Europe. He compared the situation to the economic collapse in Argentina, but the EMU countries are worse off. Argentina was able to cut its connection to the dollar, but EMU countries cannot abandon the euro.
One meter was one meter in 1910, just as now. A liter is a liter, but a Swedish krona of 2004 is no longer worth the same as in 1910. Its value has sharply declined. Is that not strange?
Swedish and U.S. official statistics state that in the year 2000, roughly 140 percent of the average working man's income went to necessities such as food, living, clothing, education medical care, as compared to 75 percent in the early 1970s. Today it is barely enough for both parents to work to make ends meet.
THE ROTHSCHILDS' PLAN TO CONQUER AMERICA FOR THE BANKERS
Count Cherep-Spiridovitch, a tsarist general who battled the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, published a book in 1926 entitled The Secret World Government which shows how the Rothschilds plan for world tyranny dominates modern history. He cites an interview with German Chancellor Otto van Bismarck in 1876, in which Bismarck explained that the Rothschilds who already controlled Europe, were afraid, in the middle of the 19th century, that the United States would become independent of them if it remained one nation. The plan, therefore, was to divide the United States between England (controlled by Lionel Rothschild) and France (controlled by James Rothschild). France was to take over the South while British Canada annexed the defeated North. As a preparatory move, in 1863, France and Spain invaded Mexico with 30,000 troops. Britain, France and other European powers were ready to snuff out the young republic but were deterred by Russia, the only European nation not in the Rothschilds' thrall. Tsar Alexander II sent his fleets to New York and San Francisco and declared that an attack on the United States was an attack on Russia. Meanwhile the U.S. Congress, stimulated by Lincoln, created "greenback" dollars to finance the war and escape indebtedness to the foreign financiers. 'They [the Rothschilds] understood at once that the United States would escape their grip,” Bismarck said. “The death of Lincoln was resolved upon. Nothing [was] easier than, to find a fanatic to strike.” Cherep-Spiridovitch concludes: “According to Bismarck the awful Civil War in America was fomented by a Jewish conspiracy and Abraham Lincoln ..was killed by the same Hidden Hand that killed six Romanov tsars, 10 kings and scores of ministers only to more easily bleed their nations?
In the 1970s the total value of the world trade of industrial goods was 50 percent, the rest was in stocks and shares. In the year 2001 the relation was 1 percent goods and 99 percent with securities. Speculation dominates.
The current monetary system encourages fraud and extension of the gray economy and has led to the fact that those who constantly are in need of money lose more and more to those who have far more than they need. More and more money is collected in the hands of certain individuals, who happen to be Masonic bankers. If interest is abolished, everyone benefits from the new system, not only the 80 percent considered poor.
Alfred Herrhausen, member of the hoard of Deutsche Bank, has pointed out: “Those responsible for the current monetary system, know very well that it cannot last, but they do not know any alternative or do not want, to know of any.”
To the Freemasons it is important to keep us in economic slavery; otherwise they would have done everything to abolish interest. Through taxes and duty the government owns most of the result of the economic activities of the people. What are then the Freemasons’ beautiful phrases of humanism really worth? The Masonic leaders’ foremost goal has been to conceal as best as they can the current economic slavery, One must ask oneself if they have been successful.
“Bonniers stora lexikon”/ Bonnier’s Encyclopaedia, Stockholm. 1985, 252.
Diagnosen (German magazine), February 1986
Daniel. John. Scarlet and the Beast, Vol III. Tyler, U.S.A.
Grubiak, Olive & Jan, The Guernsey Experiment, Omni Publicatlions, 1960.
Jaikaran. Dr. Jacques S,. The Debt Virus: A Compelling Solution to the Warm Debt Problems, 1992
Kennedy, Margrit. Interest and Inflation Free Money, Goeteborg 1993.137-39.
JURI LINA an internationally renowned writer. His chief specialty is political economy, with a specific concentration on the connection between finance and political regimes. He presently lives in Sweden.
May 28, 2013
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 1 (May 7, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 2 (May 7, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 3 (May 14, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 4 (May 20, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 5 (May 22, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 6 (May 27, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 7 (June 1, 2013)
Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down, Part 8 (June 5, 2013)
And now for something completely different … (February 13, 2012)