The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say last week I gave money to an organization that says it rebuilds orphanages. It turns out it really buys bombs. You think I should be branded a terrorist and ran out of any public positions?

Shut down the organization, sure. If someone gives money and notes in the memo line that want the money used to buy bombs, not orpanages, pick him up too.

But not every hypo donor is a bad guy B.

I agree with this but from my current understanding that no one is able to refute, nothing like this happened.

What if a donor refused to critisize the bombing or critisize the group? Should I have to hire them? Should the government hire them? If they have a government job should they keep it?

If it is pointed out that you donated, all you have to do is say it was a mistake.

Why didn't fisher say it was a mistake to be part of the Lawyers Guild. Or claim that the Lawyers Guild is not a communist organization and if it was he would not be a member.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with this but from my current understanding that no one is able to refute, nothing like this happened.

JOHN HENRY FAULK!!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky

But it seems to me the only people that got nailed were people that refused to critisize the communist party. Here is a party that is being financed by the Soviet Union and is trying to overthrow the US government.

You're missing the forest for the trees, Spank (as is Coulter).

The evil of McCarthyism was not limited to false accusations. Rather, it was the method he employed, like the one you are using to defend it. He cited tenuous connections between people and organizations, when certain other people also members of those organizations may have had ties to communism or communist thinking. It was the classic smear campaign. (For the modern-day equivalent, think of liberals lumping all members of the Federalist Society into some sort of uber-con group.) McCarthy's objective was not solely the "outing" of those with sympathies to others with left-thinking views, it rather was to chill both speech and association, two values of greater importance to citizens of this country than any other.

If you remember The Crucible the issue wasn't whether the people were or were not witches, is was the method by which they were accused, tried, and ultimately sentenced to death. It had nothing to do with facts and process, and everything to do with rumors and mob rule.

You ask if anyone was falsely accused. I ask in response whether a single person was convicted of a crime of treason (or similar) arising out of his investigations? I think the answer is no, which also tells you something.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why didn't fisher say it was a mistake to be part of the Lawyers Guild. Or claim that the Lawyers Guild is not a communist organization and if it was he would not be a member.

Fisher wasn't a witness, and wasn't even present for the exchange (he apparently had been rejected from working on the case with Welch because of the NLG issue).

The exchange came up when Welch was questioning Roy Cohn about whether Cohn had given the FBI a list of communists working at defense plants, and McCarthy interrupted the questioning to point out that a member of Welch's law firm (Hale & Dorr) was a communist because he had been a NLG volunteer.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with this but from my current understanding that no one is able to refute, nothing like this happened.

What if a donor refused to critisize the bombing or critisize the group? Should I have to hire them? Should the government hire them? If they have a government job should they keep it?

If it is pointed out that you donated, all you have to do is say it was a mistake.

Why didn't fisher say it was a mistake to be part of the Lawyers Guild. Or claim that the Lawyers Guild is not a communist organization and if it was he would not be a member.

Google the TV of what Welch said in response. It's quite compelling video.

Fisher wasn't brought into the hearing because Welch was afraid McCarthy would slam him and attempt to destroy him. McCarthy going out of his way to "name" someone unrelated to the hearings was seen at the time as a very clear example of what a shitty guy he was. His power died that moment. Within a month he was censured on the Senate floor.

• MR. WELCH - Senator, you won't need anything in the record when I
  finish telling you this. Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really
  gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.
  Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came
  into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us.
  When I decided to work for this committee I asked Jim St. Clair, who sits
  on my right, to be my first assistant. I said to Jim: "Pick somebody in
  the firm to work under you that you would like."
  He chose Fred Fisher and they came down on an afternoon plane. That
  night when we had taken a little stab at trying to see what the case was
  about, Fred Fisher and Jim St. Clair and I went to dinner together.
  I then said to these two young men: "Boys, I don't know anything about
  you except I've always liked you, but if there's anything funny in the life
  of either one of you that would hurt anybody in this case, you speak up
  quick."
  And Fred Fisher said: "Mr. Welch, when I was in the law school and for
  a period of months after I belonged to the Lawyer's Guild" as you have
  suggested, Senator.
  He went on to say, "I am the secretary of the Young Republicans' League
  with the son of the Massachusetts Governor and I have the respect and
  admiration of my community and I'm sure I have the respect and admiration of
  the twenty-five lawyers or so in Hale & Dorr [Mr. Welch's law firm.]"
  And I said, "Fred, I just don't think I'm going to ask you to work on
  the case. If I do, one of these days that will come out and go over
  national television and it will hurt like the dickens."
  So, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston. Little did I dream
  you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It
  is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to
  be with Hale & Dorr.
  It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear
  a scar, needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you
  for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man,
  but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - May I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being
  cruel and reckless. He was just baiting -- he has been baiting Mr. Cohn
  here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn before sundown get out of any
  department of the Government anyone who was serving the Communist cause.
  Now, I just give this man's record, and I want to say, Mr. Welch, that
  it has been labeled long before he became a member as early as 1944.
  MR. WELCH - Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the
  Lawyer's Guild.
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - Let me finish this.
  MR. WELCH - And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no
  personal injury, Mr. Cohn.
  MR. COHN - No, sir.
  MR. WELCH - I meant to do you no personal injury and if I did, I beg
  your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done
  enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no
  sense of decency?
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch.
  MR. WELCH - I'll say it hurts.
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - May I say, Mr. Chairman, as a point of personal
  privilege, that I'd like to finish this.
  MR. WELCH - Senator, I think it hurts you too, sir.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Fisher wasn't a witness, and wasn't even present for the exchange (he apparently had been rejected from working on the case with Welch because of the NLG issue).

The exchange came up when Welch was questioning Roy Cohn about whether Cohn had given the FBI a list of communists working at defense plants, and McCarthy interrupted the questioning to point out that a member of Welch's law firm (Hale & Dorr) was a communist because he had been a NLG volunteer.

If you missed it I already posted the exact exchange that took place. He didn't interrupt the questioning he was answering a direct question from Welch. See my earlier post.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Google the TV of what Welch said in response. It's quite compelling video.

Fisher wasn't brought into the hearing because Welch was afraid McCarthy would slam him and attempt to destroy him. McCarthy going out of his way to "name" someone unrelated to the hearings was seen at the time as a very clear example of what a shitty guy he was. His power died that moment. Within a month he was censured on the Senate floor.

• MR. WELCH - Senator, you won't need anything in the record when I
  finish telling you this. Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really
  gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.
  Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came
  into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us.
  When I decided to work for this committee I asked Jim St. Clair, who sits
  on my right, to be my first assistant. I said to Jim: "Pick somebody in
  the firm to work under you that you would like."
  He chose Fred Fisher and they came down on an afternoon plane. That
  night when we had taken a little stab at trying to see what the case was
  about, Fred Fisher and Jim St. Clair and I went to dinner together.
  I then said to these two young men: "Boys, I don't know anything about
  you except I've always liked you, but if there's anything funny in the life
  of either one of you that would hurt anybody in this case, you speak up
  quick."
  And Fred Fisher said: "Mr. Welch, when I was in the law school and for
  a period of months after I belonged to the Lawyer's Guild" as you have
  suggested, Senator.
  He went on to say, "I am the secretary of the Young Republicans' League
  with the son of the Massachusetts Governor and I have the respect and
  admiration of my community and I'm sure I have the respect and admiration of
  the twenty-five lawyers or so in Hale & Dorr [Mr. Welch's law firm.]"
  And I said, "Fred, I just don't think I'm going to ask you to work on
  the case. If I do, one of these days that will come out and go over
  national television and it will hurt like the dickens."
  So, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston. Little did I dream
  you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It
  is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to
  be with Hale & Dorr.
  It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear
  a scar, needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you
  for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man,
  but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - May I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being
  cruel and reckless. He was just baiting -- he has been baiting Mr. Cohn
  here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn before sundown get out of any
  department of the Government anyone who was serving the Communist cause.
  Now, I just give this man's record, and I want to say, Mr. Welch, that
  it has been labeled long before he became a member as early as 1944.
  MR. WELCH - Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the
  Lawyer's Guild.
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - Let me finish this.
  MR. WELCH - And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no
  personal injury, Mr. Cohn.
  MR. COHN - No, sir.
  MR. WELCH - I meant to do you no personal injury and if I did, I beg
  your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done
  enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no
  sense of decency?
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch.
  MR. WELCH - I'll say it hurts.
  SENATOR MCCARTHY - May I say, Mr. Chairman, as a point of personal
  privilege, that I'd like to finish this.
  MR. WELCH - Senator, I think it hurts you too, sir.

Why didn't you list what McCarthy actually said. All we have here is Welch's response. This is nice theatrics but what did the Senator say and why did he say it.

[Nut Penske]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with this but from my current understanding that no one is able to refute, nothing like this happened.

What if a donor refused to critisize the bombing or critisize the group? Should I have to hire them? Should the government hire them? If they have a government job should they keep it?

If it is pointed out that you donated, all you have to do is say it was a mistake.

Why didn't fisher say it was a mistake to be part of the Lawyers Guild. Or claim that the Lawyers Guild is not a communist organization and if it was he would not be a member.

Based on the Spanky-approved method of guilt by association, each of Spanky, Chinaski, Penske, Slave, Soiuthern Patriot, Not Me and Bilmore are now all responsible for statements and associations of the others (including all Penske socks). You have 10 minutes to deny those statements with which you disagree, after which you will be held responsible.

And since we know Slave and Ty both are part of management of a certain legal discussion website, and Ty once was a member of the National Lawyer's Guild, we intend to hold you, Spanky, responsible for your fraternization with known communist sympathizers.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why didn't you list what McCarthy actually said. All we have here is Welch's response. This is nice theatrics but what did the Senator say and why did he say it.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Cohn, what is the exact number of Communists or subversives that are loose today in these defense plants?

Mr. COHN. The exact number that is loose, sir?

Mr. WELCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. COHN. I don’t know.

Mr. WELCH. Roughly how many?

Mr. COHN. I can only tell you, sir, what we know about it.

Mr. WELCH. That is 130, is that right?

Mr. COHN. Yes, sir. I am going to try to particularize for you, if I can.

Mr. WELCH. I am in a hurry. I don’t want the sun to go down while they are still in there, if we can get them out.

Mr. COHN. I am afraid we won’t be able to work that fast, sir.

Mr. WELCH. I have a suggestion about it, sir. How many are there?

Mr. COHN. I believe the figure is approximately 130.

Mr. WELCH. Approximately one-two-three?

Mr. COHN. Yes, sir. Those are people, Mr. Welch—

Mr. WELCH. I don’t care. You told us who they are. In how many plants are they?

Mr. COHN. How many plants?

Mr. WELCH. How many plants.

Mr. COHN. Yes, sir; just I minute, sir. I see 16 offhand, sir.

Mr. WELCH. Sixteen plants?

Mr. COHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELCH. Where are they, sir?

Mr. COHN. Senator McCarthy—

Mr. WELCH. Reel off the cities.

Mr. COHN. Would you stop me if I am going too far?

Mr. WELCH. You can’t go too far revealing Communists, Mr. Cohn. Reel off the cities for us.

Mr. COHN. Schenectady, N.Y.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Rome, N.Y.; Quincy, Mass.; Fitchburg, Mass.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Dunkirk, N.Y.; another at Buffalo, N.Y.; Cambridge, Mass.; New Bedford, Mass.; Boston, Mass.; Quincy, Mass.; Lynn, Mass.; Pittsfield Mass.; Boston, Mass.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Cohn, you not only frighten me, you make me ashamed when there are so many in Massachusetts. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter, believe me. Are you alarmed at that situation, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. COHN. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. WELCH. Nothing could be more alarming, could it?

Mr. COHN. It certainly is a very alarming thing.

Mr. WELCH. Will you not, before the sun goes down, give those names to the FBI and at least have those men put under surveillance.

Mr. COHN. Mr. Welch, the FBI—

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WELCH. That is a fair question.

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, let’s not be ridiculous. Mr. Welch knows, as I have told him a dozen times, that the FBI has all of this information. The defense plants have the information. The only thing we can do is to try and publicly expose these individuals and hope that they will be gotten rid of. And you know that, Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. I do not know that. . . .

Cannot the FBI put these 130 men under surveillance before sundown tomorrow?

Mr. COHN. Sir, if there is need for surveillance in the case of espionage or anything like that, I can well assure you that Mr. John Edgar Hoover and his men know a lot better than I, and I quite respectfully suggest, sir, than probably a lot of us, just who should be put under surveillance. I do not propose to tell the FBI how to run its shop. It does it very well.

Mr. WELCH. And they do it, don’t they, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. COHN. When the need arises, of course.

Mr. WELCH. And will you tell them tonight, Mr. Cohn, that here is a case where the need has arisen, so that it can be done by sundown tomorrow night?

Mr. COHN. No, sir; there is no need for my telling the FBI what to do about this or anything else. . . .

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Cohn, tell me once more: Every time you learn of a Communist or a spy anywhere, is it your policy to get them out as fast as possible?

Mr. COHN. Surely, we want them out as fast as possible, sir.

Mr. WELCH. And whenever you learn of one from now on, Mr. Cohn, I beg of you, will you tell somebody about them quick?

Mr. COHN. Mr. Welch, with great respect, I work for the committee here. They know how we go about handling situations of Communist infiltration and failure to act on FBI information about Communist infiltration. If they are displeased with the speed with which I and the group of men who work with me proceed, if they are displeased with the order in which we move, I am sure they will give me appropriate instructions along those lines, and I will follow any which they give me.

Mr. WELCH. May I add my small voice, sir, and say whenever you know about a subversive or a Communist spy, please hurry. Will you remember those words?

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COHN. Mr. Welch, I can assure you, sir, as far as I am concerned, and certainly as far as the chairman of this committee and the members, and the members of the staff, are concerned, we are a small group, but we proceed as expeditiously as is humanly possible to get out Communists and traitors and to bring to light the mechanism by which they have been permitted to remain where they were for so long a period of time.

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, in view of that question—

Senator MUNDT. Have you a point of order?

Senator MCCARTHY. Not exactly, Mr. Chairman, but in view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party, an organization which always swings to the defense of anyone who dares to expose Communists. I certainly assume that Mr. Welch did not know of this young man at the time he recommended him as the assistant counsel for this committee, but he has such terror and such a great desire to know where anyone is located who may be serving the Communist cause, Mr. Welch, that I thought we should just call to your attention the fact that your Mr. Fisher, who is still in your law firm today, whom you asked to have down here looking over the secret and classified material, is a member of an organization, not named by me but named by various committees, named by the Attorney General, as I recall, and I think I quote this verbatim, as “the legal bulwark of the Communist Party.” He belonged to that for a sizable number of years, according to his own admission, and he belonged to it long after it had been exposed as the legal arm of the Communist Party.

Knowing that, Mr. Welch, I just felt that I had a duty to respond to your urgent request that before sundown, when we know of anyone serving the Communist cause, we let the agency know. We are now letting you know that your man did belong to this organization for, either 3 or 4 years, belonged to it long after he was out of law school.

I don’t think you can find anyplace, anywhere, an organization which has done more to defend Communists—I am again quoting the report—to defend Communists, to defend espionage agents, and to aid the Communist cause, than the man whom you originally wanted down here at your right hand instead of Mr. St. Clair.

I have hesitated bringing that up, but I have been rather bored with your phony requests to Mr. Cohn here that he personally get every Communist out of government before sundown. Therefore, we will give you information about the young man in your own organization.

I am not asking you at this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist Party. I don’t think you yourself would ever knowingly aid the Communist cause. I think you are unknowingly aiding it when you try to burlesque this hearing in which we are attempting to bring out the facts, however.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUNDT. Mr. Welch, the Chair should say he has no recognition or no memory of Mr. Welch’s recommending either Mr. Fisher or anybody else as counsel for this committee.

I will recognize Mr. Welch.

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I will give you the news story on that.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, under these circumstances I must have something approaching a personal privilege.

Senator MUNDT. You may have it, sir. It will not be taken out of your time.

Mr. WELCH. Senator McCarthy, I did not know—Senator, sometimes you say “May I have your attention?”

Senator MCCARTHY. I am listening to you. I can listen with one ear.

Mr. WELCH. This time I want you to listen with both.

Senator MCCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. Senator McCarthy, I think until this moment—

Senator MCCARTHY. Jim, will you get the news story to the effect that this man belonged to this Communist-front organization? Will you get the citations showing that this was the legal arm of the Communist Party, and the length of time that he belonged, and the fact that he was recommended by Mr. Welch? I think that should be in the record.

Mr. WELCH. You won’t need anything in the record when I have finished telling you this.

[hank's post picks up here]

eta: Oops. Forgot the cite. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444/

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
JOHN HENRY FAULK!!

Is this what qualified as a cite these days? I read a book and it said something?

Can you cite me a specific person that unknowingly gave money to an organization, found out later it was communist affiliated, said that it was a mistake, that they were not a communist but still lost their job.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Nut Penske
Based on the Spanky-approved method of guilt by association, each of Spanky, Chinaski, Penske, Slave, Soiuthern Patriot, Not Me and Bilmore are now all responsible for statements and associations of the others (including all Penske socks). You have 10 minutes to deny those statements with which you disagree, after which you will be held responsible.

And since we know Slave and Ty both are part of management of a certain legal discussion website, and Ty once was a member of the National Lawyer's Guild, we intend to hold you, Spanky, responsible for your fraternization with known communist sympathizers.

Nice of you to remember me, boy, and I have no problem standing with Spanky, Chinaski, Penske or Slave. They are fine, upstanding Americans who I know would not hire communists, yankees, or liberals. And just as Spanky stands up for Senator McCarthy, I am sure he will stand up for the leaders of the Confederacy and of those grand organizations that continue the great traditions of the Confederacy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
JOHN HENRY FAULK!!

Stop yelling.

Faulk wasn't touched by McCarthy. Faulk made public statements against AWARE, the private security company that was claiming to be commie-uncoverers, and from whence a lot of the private entertainment-folk blacklists were generated. (No, McCarthy wasn't making those lists.) AWARE called Faulk a Commie in retribution, and stuck him on their lists. Faulk sued AWARE, and won.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is this what qualified as a cite these days? I read a book and it said something?

Can you cite me a specific person that unknowingly gave money to an organization, found out later it was communist affiliated, said that it was a mistake, that they were not a communist but still lost their job.

You stated that you had no sympathy for any communist who lost his or her job because of being a communist. I responded that it wasn't as simple as that, that McCarthyism swept broadly, and that non-communists, former communists, and people who unknowingly participated in organizarions that were communist-funded were dragged through the mud.

You asked for examples of people who were falsely accused of being communists. I answered with John Henry Faulk's name, and Fred Fisher. Faulk proved that he wasn't a communist at trial. Fisher was a person who had volunteered for the National Lawyers Guild as a young man, and was later a Republican.

You don't like the fact that I gave you Faulk's name because it destroys your pet theory (based upon Ann Coulter) that no Not Commie was harmed by McCarthyism. Like it or not, Fault is a specific person who was accused of being a communist, and because of the false accusation, he lost his job. You don't have to read the book. I gave you another cite, but since you didn't click on it, here is the text.

I suggested that you read Nizer's book because it talks about other people who were smeared unjustly, and the climate of fear that AWARE created in the industry. But it is clear that you really don't care about facts, so forget it.

Oh, and your little Nazi analogy? Before his Wheeling speech, your hero McCarthy was best known as the apologist for and defender of the SS troops sentenced to death for their role in the massacre of US POWs at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge.

• FAULK, JOHN HENRY (1913-1990). John Henry Faulk, humorist and author, fourth of five children of Henry and Martha (Miner) Faulk, was born in Austin, Texas, on August 21, 1913. His parents were staunch yet freethinking Methodists who taught him to detest racism. He entered the University of Texas in 1932. Under the guidance of J. Frank Dobie, Walter P. Webb, and Roy Bedichek,qqv he developed his considerable abilities as a collector of folklore. For his master's degree thesis, Faulk recorded and analyzed ten African-American sermons from churches along the Brazos River. His research convinced him that members of minorities, particularly African Americans,qv faced grave limitations of their civil rights. Between 1940 and 1942, Faulk taught an English I course at the University, using mimicry and storytelling to illustrate the best and worst of Texas societal customs. Often made to feel inferior at faculty gatherings, Faulk increasingly told unbelievable tales and bawdy jokes. His ability both to parody and to praise human behavior led to his entertainment and literary career. Early in World War IIqv the army refused to admit him because of a bad eye. In 1942 he joined the United States Merchant Marine for a year of trans-Atlantic duty, followed by a year with the Red Cross in Cairo, Egypt. By 1944 relaxed standards allowed the army to admit him for limited duty as a medic; he served the rest of the war at Camp Swift, Texas.
  
  Radio provided Faulk the audience he, as a storyteller, craved. Through his friend Alan Lomax, who worked at the CBS network in New York, Faulk became acquainted with industry officials. During Christmas 1945, Lomax hosted a series of parties to showcase Faulk's yarn-spinning abilities. When discharged from the army in April 1946, CBS gave Faulk his own weekly radio program, entitled "Johnny's Front Porch"; it lasted a year. Faulk began a new program on suburban station WOV in 1947 and the next year moved to another New Jersey station, WPAT, where he established himself as a raconteur while hosting "Hi-Neighbor," "Keep 'em Smiling," and "North New Jersey Datebook." WCBS Radio debuted the "John Henry Faulk Show" on December 17, 1951. The program, which featured music, political humor, and listener participation, ran for six years.
  
  Faulk's radio career ended in 1957, a victim of the Cold War and the blacklisting of the 1950s. Inspired by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, AWARE, Incorporated, a New York-based, for-profit, corporation, offered "clearance" services to major media advertisers and radio and television networks. For a fee, AWARE would investigate the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. In 1955 Faulk earned the enmity of the blacklist organization when he and other members wrested control of their union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists from officers under the aegis of AWARE. In retaliation, AWARE branded Faulk a Communist. When he discovered that the AWARE bulletin prevented a radio station from making him an employment offer, Faulk sought redress. Several prominent radio personalities and CBS News vice president Edward R. Murrow supported Faulk's effort to end blacklisting. With financial backing from Murrow, Faulk engaged New York attorney Louis Nizer. Attorneys for AWARE, including McCarthy-committee counsel Roy Cohn, managed to stall the suit, which was originally filed in 1957, for five years. When the trial finally concluded in a New York courtroom, the jury had determined that Faulk should receive more compensation than he sought in his original petition. On June 28, 1962, the jury awarded him the largest libel judgment in history to that date—$3.5 million. An appeals court subsequently reduced the amount to $500,000. Legal fees and accumulated debts erased the balance of the award.

(emphasis from me)

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/...a36_print.html

eta to make a sentence out of a sentence fragment

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Stop yelling.

Faulk wasn't touched by McCarthy. Faulk made public statements against AWARE, the private security company that was claiming to be commie-uncoverers, and from whence a lot of the private entertainment-folk blacklists were generated. (No, McCarthy wasn't making those lists.) AWARE called Faulk a Commie in retribution, and stuck him on their lists. Faulk sued AWARE, and won.

Perhaps you should read what I was replying to, and which I had already answered (twice). Apparently, spanky doesn't read my answers. Or he's willfully obtuse on this issue.

Here's his post:

• As I stated before, if someone said that they had made a mistake, and didn't support the communist party then it would be wrong if they got fired. Do you have an actual example of this?
  
  But it seems to me the only people that got nailed were people that refused to critisize the communist party. Here is a party that is being financed by the Soviet Union and is trying to overthrow the US government.
  
  Now if people were still getting fired and other bad things were happening to them because they unknowingly donated to a group they did not know was communist and pointed out it was a mistake. That would suck. But so far no one has shown me this has happened.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're missing the forest for the trees, Spank (as is Coulter).

The evil of McCarthyism was not limited to false accusations. Rather, it was the method he employed, like the one you are using to defend it. He cited tenuous connections between people and organizations, when certain other people also members of those organizations may have had ties to communism or communist thinking. It was the classic smear campaign. (For the modern-day equivalent, think of liberals lumping all members of the Federalist Society into some sort of uber-con group.) McCarthy's objective was not solely the "outing" of those with sympathies to others with left-thinking views, it rather was to chill both speech and association, two values of greater importance to citizens of this country than any other.

I use to think that but now I am not so sure, and everyones responses on this board is now convincing me everything I have ever heard is B.S. In this country you can be a communist and you can associated with communists. You could do that during the fifties. No one was ever jailed for being a communist and no one was every denied their constitutional right to free speech or association. What happend was that a certain social stigma was attached with being a communist or communist affiliated. Just like being called a racist carries a certain social stigma today. Today if you are called a racist then you just deny it. If someone calls you a racist, or shows that you have relations with racist organizations, this is not questioned. You just simply deny you are a racist.

What is the difference between being a racist today and communist back in the fities. Should communists be treated any different from racists?

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) If you remember The Crucible the issue wasn't whether the people were or were not witches, is was the method by which they were accused, tried, and ultimately sentenced to death. It had nothing to do with facts and process, and everything to do with rumors and mob rule.

But no one was convicted or sentenced for exercising their first amandment rights. The communist party was being financed by the Soviet Union to subert and overthrow the government of the United States. This same group was supporting the North Korean government with arms that were being used to kill our soldiers. What is wrong with trying to see who is affiliated with the communist party.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) You ask if anyone was falsely accused. I ask in response whether a single person was convicted of a crime of treason (or similar) arising out of his investigations? I think the answer is no, which also tells you something.

It tells me we didn't investigate them enough. It is now clear from the KGB archives that there spied throughout the US government and their activities did a great deal of damage to national security.

Why won't anyone answer these questions. If someone would say that the following is wrong, then I wouldn't think most of the people on this board are not totally hyporcritical:

Post #686


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
Would anyone on this board care if the US Congresss did an investigation into Neo-Nazis and other racist parties in the United States?

What about an investigation as to whether members of Neo-Nazi groups were working in the United States government?

What if they held hearings and interviewed the leaders about their activities?

If a lawyer defending ones of these Neo - Nazis was shown to be member of a Neo-Nazi party would people consider digging up such information as "smear tactics"?

And what if it turned out that some Hollywood writers, directors and producers may have been members of or were currently members of Neo-Nazi parties?

Would anyone have a problem with Congress investigating that?

If there was a suspicion considering whether a Hollywood writer producer or director was either a current or former member of a neo-nazi party and they refused to answer whether they were a current or former member of a Neo Nazi organization would anyone care if the studios decided not to hire them?

Would it be out of line for a studio to ask before they hire someone that they state that they are not, nor have ever been a member of a Neo Nazi group, and if they had been to disavow that membership?

Really. Who would have a problem with that?