BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Red Dawn VI: Commies Love Media

by David Yeagley · April 1, 2010 · 11 Comments ·

The incredulous prospect of Communists in high office in the United States government is still scoffed at today by liberals. The word “McCarthyism” still works like magic to dismiss any idea that traitors even exist, much like “Islamophobe” is used to laugh away the thought that murderous Muslims are in the government employ–or worse, that they have white liberal defenders in Congress, or yet worst of all, that they have a friend in the White House.

Chapter 6: “But Were There Communists In The State Department?”
People born in the ’50′s, the “baby-boomers,” are generally mis-education about American history, thanks to the liberal reconstruction of that history in public school textbooks. Liberals always win the media war. Imagination is their world. Propaganda is their forte. “Liberal hysteria has become historical fact,” says Coulter


Ann Coulter

Out of Joy Hakim’s A History of US, Vol. 10 (New York: Oxford University Press Children’s Books, 1999), we are told that McCarthy

“was a liar. Not your ordinary small-time fibber. No Senator Joseph McCarthy was an enormous, outrageous, beyond-belief liar.”

This little snippet was related to us in an article for Human Events by LeBarbera and Ryskind: “Popular Textbook Spews Venom at Reagan,” (1997). Coulter notes, too, that most modern academic (“scholarly”) history works on McCarthy rely on contemporary newspaper articles, and don’t involved primary sources or serious research. According to Coulter, it was liberal Commie types who were churning out the news articles to begin with. Much of that anti-McCarthy info was “recycled” from the Tydings Committee report–an ‘investigative’ effort designed by segragationalist Democrat senator Millard Tydings to destroy McCarthy’s investigations. Tydings father-in-law, in fact, the infamous Joseph E. Davies, was Roosevelt’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, and Davies loved Uncle Joe Stalin, like most everyone else in Roosevelt’s Democrat administration.

Historical facts were created by Commie advocates like journalist Isador Feinstein Stone, who supported Stalin in the ’30′s, and the Russian-backed “Progressive Party” candidate Henry Wallace in the ’40′s, and condemned the Vietnam effort in the ’60′s. Stone was lauded by all liberals as the icon of investigative journalists. Of course, Stone was a paid Soviet agent. Coulter cites at least three major research volumes which include information on Stone, one of which was published by Yale in 2002: John E. Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. One too many Russians spilled the beans on “Izzy.” Coulter goes into vomitable detail about Stone. (Coulter gives a courteous hat-tip to David Horowitz as one who came out of the Jewish-Communist culture.)


Communist journalist I. F. Stone, 1907-1989.

Liberal media, so satisfied with the McCarthy bit, so confident in its success, so completely deluded by it, actually tried to use it as a journalistic talisman when Kenneth Star began investigating Bill Clinton. Not that girly-man Kenneth Star was at all comparable to the gutsy Joe McCarthy, but liberals were terrified that Clinton would be irreparably damaged by any serious, truthful investigation. The whole liberal media machine was set in motion to defend Clinton. Coulter simply points out how they used their “McCarthyism” myth to discredit the whole notion that Clinton wasn’t a saint with an Arkansas accent.

The smear of McCarthy continued with rigour, focusing on a totally fabricated “fact”–exigent and earth-shaking. The accusers claimed McCarthy professed to have the names of 205 Communists in the State Department. McCarthy said he only had 57. His concern was about the other 148. It was Democrat Secretary of State James Byrnes who had admitted 205 ‘security risks’ at the State Deparment. The smear-mongering media accused McCarthy of “perjury.” Never mind the Communists. Let’s concentrate on McCarthy’s character. This is how the liberal mind works: dramatize the insignificant for ‘red herring.’ Works every time.
Spend all the time and effort on a completely insignificant side show, and make sure it is false in nature. That somehow always makes it more dramatic, and seemingly important, and true. A whole congressional committe investigated whether McCarthy had claimed to have 57 names (as he said) or 205 names. They finally had to admit the truth. He’d said 57.

The primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was McCarthy. Liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making McCarthy the issue. They did to McCarthy everything they falsely accused him of doing to them. The press didn’t mind trafficking the innuendo and smears when McCarthy was the target. Only when Communists spies and sympathizers were exposed did it qualify as a “witch hunt.”

They later accused McCarthy and assistants of being homosexuals–and this was post-mortem. Imagine that. Liberals, who we understand to be passionate supporters of homosexuality, are willing to accuse others–even the dead–of being homosexuals, it if will help discredit the accused. How’s that for consistency?

Of course, the tour de force, the “teachable moment” for liberal journalists, was when Joseph Welch stood up in the hearings and cried out against McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” This kind of emotionalism is the staple appeal of the liberal when exposed. It is considererd a moral crime to expose the immorality of the liberal. Coulter shows how the media forever aggrandized this Welch moment.

McCarthy suffered long under the abuse of the Democrats and their media. He did show the effects after months of attack. The constant diversion of the important issues, the perpetual dramatization of insignificance, the mockery of sincerity, all this would make the Welch moment seem the perfect projection. It was McCarthy’s enemies who had no sense of decency. They were deluded liars. Nothing more. And Coulter makes a lesson for conservatives out of the Welch moment:

Welch would say something vicious, McCarthy would reply, and Welch would start crying. This is why no woman worthy her salt ever loses an argument. She starts crying, making it unmanly to pursue your victory. With the exception of Senator Stuart Symington, whom McCarthy repeatedly referred to as an “alleged man,” McCarthy made the mistake of assuming he was dealing with men, not little girls.

Coulter points out that, despite the gigantic machinery operating against him, McCarthy was a cultural hero at the time. His popularity among Americans soared. By 1953, one liberal columnist admitted, “We had used up almost our entire bag of tricks against McCarthy, without marked effect.” (This is a quote from a book by Jack Anderson and James Boyd, Confessions of a Muckraker, 1979.)


Joseph Welch, left, and Joe McCarthy, right. Apropos.

So, today, when liberals accuse conservative media, what there is of it, we simply need to understand the background. Liberals have dominated media from the beginning. Their operations are long and well-established. They are demonstrable, if one makes the effort to research. In this regard, Ann Coulter’s Treason (2003) is probably the best work of its kind. That’s why there are entire blog sites dedicated solely to debunking the book. (Well, hey, liberals never, ever back down, or back off.)

Posted by David Yeagley · April 1, 2010 · 5:31 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Communism · Liberalism · Politics




Read More Journal Posts »

11 responses so far ↓

  • 1 tjones // Apr 1, 2010 at 10:01 pm   

    GunslingersJournal It is a good blogsite,Dr.Yeagley,and somewhat similar. I thank you for yours,and I “copy,paste,and e-mail” to others.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Apr 2, 2010 at 7:33 am   

    Thanks for the tip. I was called a gunslinger in college, though I never carried a gun!

    Man exists in a natural state of hierarchies. It isn’t the fact that we have authorities above us, but the fact that they become vile before our eyes. That deserves the wrath of the people.

  • 3 David Yeagley // Apr 2, 2010 at 10:09 am   

    Byron York asked Rush Limbaugh for a response to Barry “Obama’s” accusations against conservative talk shows (i.e., Limbaugh):

    Limbaugh responds to Obama: ‘Never in my life have I seen a regime like this’

    “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country. Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country.”

    Rush needs to tread Coulter’s TREASON. This is my whole point in these ‘boring’ blogs. Plenty of people feared the Communist Democrats in Roosevelt’s day, and in the “McCarthy era. The media was in full support of the Communists. The majority of media establishments were already Communist. This is what we were born into. This is what has led to Barry’s election.

    The public’s lack of historical knowledge and background is the foundation of the liberals’ success.

  • 4 zephyr // Apr 2, 2010 at 11:22 am   

    “This kind of emotionalism is the staple appeal of the liberal when exposed. It is considererd a moral crime to expose the immorality of the liberal. ”

    “The public’s lack of historical knowledge and background is the foundation of the liberals’ success.”

    Very true.

  • 5 zephyr // Apr 2, 2010 at 11:38 am   

    “The incredulous prospect of Communists in high office in the United States government is still scoffed at today by liberals.”

    It certainly is.

    A recent U.S. News and World Report “Collector’s Edition” on Secret Societies exemplifies the lies historians, writers, and media continue to spread.

    Virtually all of the issue’s contributors ridicule the idea of “secret societies” and conspiracy. Some are members of the society they write about (so of course their perspective is balanced–NOT!). One article praises “The Assassin’s Legend”–i.e. the earliest Muslim terrorists.

    An excerpt from Michael Barkun’s _A Culture of Conspiracy_ is included in the issue. Barkun ridicules Larry Abrahams’ assertion in 1971 that the U.S. would become a socialist nation. He quotes Abraham’s book _Call It Conspiracy_:

    “‘After the ‘Insiders’ have established the United Socialist States of America (in fact if not in name), the next step is the Great Merger of all nations of the world into a dictatorial world government.’”

    Abraham was spot on. Markum of course incorrectly assumes that no one would dare question his ridicule.

    A liberal’s ridicule is supposed to be worth its weight in gold, unquestionable, inviolable. Ridicule should immediately raise red flags and call for investigation of FACT.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Apr 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm   

    Well, the scoffers (liberals) have media behind them. It isn’t just a matter of their character or behavior; they have the power of media.

    “…we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:” Isaiah 28:15. But the final outcome? “Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. (:18) (thus saith the Lord…) And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.”

    Falsehood is not eternal. There’s a lot of it down here on earth. But it doesn’t last forever here, either. Though it might seem so.

  • 7 colleague graduate // Apr 3, 2010 at 7:52 am   

    This comment has nothing to do with the article, but I thought I’d mention it anyway. I believe I’m going to have to quiet down here as much as possible. I don’t have the brain power of David the PhD, and I don’t want to make a fool out of myself commenting with such a limited knowledge of the English language. Like a silent seahawk and wide wingspread turkey buzzard flying over an unpopulated gorgeous sea island area where I live, I believe I should remain silent. If you want to see where some of these turkey buzzards hang out in the trees, visit your Google Earth program and type in Cherry Point Boat Landing, Rockville, SC. You will see a street view of exactly where I park my pickup and do some sight seeing. I found a nice large feather there one uncrowded weekday day, and I keep it on my truck’s dashboard, a good luck sign for sure. This public boat landing is a gorgeous park in a small city founded in the 1700′s on a sea island named Wadmalaw Island. You can look aroung in a 360 degree span with the Google Earth program. I’m sure David will understand my using the silent flight of these artistic birds for guidance here in this site. An eagle is also silent in flight, but none of them are found around this area.

  • 8 PM // Apr 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm   

    McCarthy was evil not because he worked to remove communist spies from the US government (this was a good thing) but because he was willing (and eager?) to destroy the lives of those who disagreed with him, those who’s politics were not completely to his liking, and those who were completely innocent of any wrong doing (you might say he behaved like a devout communist). Like many before and after him, he started out to do good but was probably corrupted by power.
    I believe your revision of history needs a powerful reality check. I would suggest serious academic sources rather than the liberal press. And remember that Coulter’s rantings should not be taken as serious academic sources.

  • 9 David Yeagley // Apr 3, 2010 at 8:24 pm   

    It looks to me like McCarthy was only investigating. This was not court. This was not law. This was about simply pointing out that there were some Communists–paid Soviet spies–working in high levels of the Democrat administration. As the records have shown, there were many more than he suspected. The damage was far worse, and the effects far deeper.

    Destorying lives of those who disagreed with him? By that formula, no one can accuse anyone of anything. No Muslims here. No terrorists in America. No Muslim intent of damage to America. We wouldn’t dare accuse anyone of such a thing. It might stifle their career.

    I don’t think this makes sense. Do you want the enemy to have free, protected reign, in your face? If you don’t, someone has to pay some kind of price.

    And McCarthy didn’t try to “remove” anyone. He was just pointing out who was who. Those who were accused were guilty, and more guilty than McCarthy realized. Whom did he accuse that turned out to be “perfectly innocent?” What are you sources? What have you read? What is your basis for saying anything you just said?

    Coulter’s book happens to be the most documented pop-politics text on the market. You can get a copy for 2 or 3 dollare, used. I say go for it. Have a good look at it. Even David Horowitz said everything McCarthy pointed out was true. And worse.

  • 10 PM // Apr 5, 2010 at 8:42 pm   

    What is the basis of anything I have said.? Well, I do admit that it has been some number of years since I read about the McCarthy era so references are not readily available. So I took a quick trip to the University library and grabbed a few books. Three that I have perused are
    Schrecker, Ellen (1998). Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Little, Brown and Company.
    Lattimer, Owen (2004), Ordeal by Slander. Carroll and Graf Publishers. (original published 1950)
    MacDonnell, Francis (1995). Insidious Foes: The Axis Fifth Column and the American Home Front. Oxford University Press.

    You claim that ‘those who were accussed were guilty, and more guilty than McCarthy realized.” You also say that “there were many more than he suspected.” Yet MacDonnell in his preface claims that “We know now that the threat of a totalitarian Trojan Horse of enemy agents, saboteurs, rumor-mongers, and dupes was largely chimerical.” Shrecker adds (p254) that “people with no connections tothe communist movement suffered at the hands of McCarthy and his followers.” Further, “it was hard for moderates and liberals to diffuse (false) charges without being accused of coverup.” You have to remember that McCarthy invoking the 5th ammendment was proof positive that you were a cummunist. With such a low bar for being guilty it is no wonder he saw bad guys everywhere.

    You ask whom he accussed who turned out to be perfectly innocent. Schrecker names several. One in particular is Owen Lattimore, who wrote a book about his ordeal (reference above). But it was not just his career that was ruined. His students were blacklisted from university and government positions despite any evidence whatsoever that they were un-American.

    You say “Destroying lives of those who disagreed with him? By that formula, no one can accuse anyone of anything.” The second sentence has virtually no connection to the first. Of course a Senate sub-committee can acuse a citizen of wrong doing. But it should not destroy the lives of the innocent. If we are going to acuse someone of something we had damn will better have serious evidence to back the accusations up. And if the accusations turn out to be wrong we should damn well do our best to set the record straight and attempt to repair the damage done by the false accusations (this McCarthydid not do). We demand this between citizens in cases of libel. It is far more important when the power of the state is behind the accusations. You seem to think that “someone has to pay the price” in order to get the bad guys. I am a little scared by what I think you are saying for this is the rationale behind the actions of vicious regimes around the world—sacrificing a few for sake of the state.

  • 11 wyattearp // Apr 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm   

    I suggest everyone read IF Stones 1973 book: SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL, this entertaining read is the anti-gun liberals bible.

    WYATT

You must log in to post a comment.