Joe McCarthy: Despicable Or Prophetic?

A recent column I wrote on communism in Hollywood in the 1940s elicited strong reaction toward the person of Joe McCarthy. This was somewhat perplexing, given that McCarthy was not the front-and-center figure investigating Hollywood communism. Yet, it wasn’t surprising, given that any mention of the Stalinist sympathies of American communists prompts liberals into reflexive accusations of McCarthyism.

For the record, the investigation of communism in Hollywood was led by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which (for most of its existence) was chaired by anti-communist Democrats. The first and last heads of HCUAA (commonly but incorrectly abbreviated as “HUAC”) were Democrats: Martin Dies (Texas) and Richard Ichord (Missouri). There is much history there, but I’d like to focus here on Joe McCarthy.

“McCarthy ruined many careers and many lives,” one reader emailed me. “His name is a disgrace to America. He was a despicable human being.”

To be sure, there is no way I can here adequately resolve McCarthy’s vilification or vindication. I have colleagues I respect on both sides of that debate. My general judgment is that Joe McCarthy certainly had his failings, clearly was not always right, but also—we’ve learned—was more often right than his detractors imagined, feared, or would grudgingly concede.

Before briefly considering both sides, one thing must be understood by everyone, especially liberals: Joe McCarthy and the Senate and House of Representatives were fully justified in investigating domestic communism. (Senator McCarthy was never a member of “HUAC.”) Communist Party USA members literally swore a loyalty oath to Stalin’s Soviet Union, pledging to work to “insure the triumph of Soviet Power in the United States.” One of the Hollywood Ten, Edward Dymytryk, the only one who openly regretted joining the Party, was appalled when fellow Party members told him that in a war between the United States and USSR, they would fight for Moscow. They devotedly sided with an ideology that killed over 100 million, double the combined tolls of World War I and II.

Communist Party USA, which secretly and illegally received an annual subsidy from Moscow, was not just another political party. Its members actively worked against America and for Stalin. They were committed to overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with what Communist Party head William Z. Foster termed a “Soviet America.” Congress, of course, is constitutionally tasked with investigating domestic security threats. Thus, Democrats and Republicans alike believed they had to investigate this. To not do so would violate their sworn oaths—to America. Joe McCarthy was one of them.

Fair enough. The question, however, was how McCarthy then proceeded in that task.

As for his failings, liberals need no persuading. They view McCarthy as a fire-breathing monster who wrecked careers with unfounded innuendo. It is conservatives who usually need swaying on McCarthy’s failings. I would point them to the original 1954 classic by William F. Buckley Jr. and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies, which listed 86 objections to the senator and his methods.

As to where McCarthy was right, I recommend the 2007 book by M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies. The material on China is astounding. The information on what really happened with McCarthy’s notorious list of communists is stunning. The section on Edward R. Murrow and Annie Lee Moss is maddening. The chapter, “The Caveman in the Sewer,” is infuriating. Evans listed numerous names of real communists who did terrible damage. And that’s just a brief snapshot of a 663-page book.

To be sure, Evans’ book has its critics, including Cold War historians I respect. Nonetheless, Evans marshalled a lifetime of research on McCarthy, producing the most eye-opening revisionist history on the man. If his book is only half right, that would be enough to force some major reappraisals by liberals who have long viewed Joe McCarthy as a worse demon than Joe Stalin. Liberals who refuse to read this book do so at peril to their service to truth.

Of course, the McCarthy debate will continue. Yet, information declassified and now available long after his death resolves the most important dispute: The anti-communist senator was justified in his fears that communists had indeed heavily penetrated the country. The latest research, particularly by Larry Ceplair, Steven Englund, and Allan Ryskind, estimate 200-300 communists operating in Hollywood in the late 1940s, always under concealment. And the crucial Venona decryptions yield over 350 communists in U.S. government positions during World War II, poised to do Stalin’s devastating work in Europe.

Joe McCarthy was right about this: these communists—along with the non-communist leftists they influenced—caused some serious damage. In fact, there may have been more of them causing more damage than even he feared.

Editor’s note: A shorter version of this article first appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Catholic Church Has Gone Socialist

Since we published our article, “Catholic Church Captured by ‘Progressive Forces,’” it is starting to dawn on many in and out of the media that Pope Francis has come down on the side of the “progressive,” and even Marxist, forces in the world today.

Writing on TheBlaze and commenting on the pope’s friendly meeting with Cuban dictator Raul Castro, Catholic writer Stephen Herreid of the Intercollegiate Review called the pope’s dealings with Castro and other Marxists “a new Catholic scandal” as significant and terrifying as the presence of pedophiles in the church. He wonders how conservative Catholics can continue to pay respect to a pope “intent on making friends with the enemies of religious liberty.”

Francis had a one-hour meeting with Raul Castro on May 10. The day before, Castro had greeted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Francis will visit Cuba in September prior to his tour of the United States.

The Associated Press reported that Castro commented, after meeting with the pope, that the pontiff “is a Jesuit, and I, in some way, am too.” Castro added, “I always studied at Jesuit schools.” He also promised, “When the pope goes to Cuba in September, I promise to go to all his Masses, and with satisfaction.”

The evidence is getting too big for the major media to ignore: the pope has made common cause with the forces of international Marxism, which are associated with atheism, the suppression of traditional Christianity, and the persecution and murder of Christians.

Conservative Catholics and many others are terrified of what is to come. Some fear that the Roman Catholic Church has joined the campaign for a global socialist state that could turn into an anti-Christian tyranny.

Dr. Timothy Ball, author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, told me during a recent interview, “I think the Catholic Church is regretting making him the pope. They did it because the previous pope was starting to deal with the problems of pedophilia and corruption in the money in the church. So the powerful Cardinals pushed him [Benedict] aside. It wasn’t a health matter at all. He just realized he couldn’t beat them…He [Francis] is bringing in these socialist ideas. He’s already expressed some of them—about inequities of wealth, redistributing the wealth, which are themes you’ve heard from Obama.”

Benedict had also been a strong opponent of Liberation Theology.

As Herreid put it in his Blaze column, “In a matter of months, Pope Francis has announced a desire to ‘quickly’ beatify a deceased liberation theologist bishop, reconciled with a Sandinista activist priest who once called Ronald Reagan a ‘butcher’ and an ‘international outlaw,’ and even invited the founder of the liberation theology movement, Rev. Gustavo Gutiérrez, to speak on the need for a ‘poor Church for the Poor’ at an official Vatican event this week.”

In fact, this is the latest example of Francis welcoming advocates of Liberation Theology—a doctrine manufactured by the old KGB to dupe Christians into supporting Marxism—directly into the Vatican.

Francis received Gutiérrez, considered the father of Liberation Theology, in September 2013, but in a private audience without photos. Then, on November 22, 2014, at the end of an audience granted to the participants of the National Missionary Congress of Italy, Francis warmly greeted him personally. Gutiérrez, a Peruvian theologian and Dominican priest, is being welcomed as an official guest at the Vatican to participate in this week’s Caritas Internationalis General Assembly, the theme of which is, “One Human Family, Caring for Creation.”

Caritas is a global confederation of 164 Catholic organizations. Its U.S. affiliates are Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services.

Herreid comments, “Neither Pope St. John Paul II nor his trusted friend and successor Benedict XVI were taken in by liberation theology. John Paul fought Communism throughout his pontificate, and Benedict was equally forceful against liberation theology’s interpretation of the traditional ‘preferential option for the poor’ as a preferential option for violent state-mandated wealth-redistribution.”

The Francis-Marxist alliance seems to confirm the predictions of the late Vatican insider Malachi Martin, who wrote penetrating books about the Catholic Church entitled The Jesuits and The Keys of This Blood. He believed that Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the “restructuring” of the old Soviet Union, never gave up on Marxism-Leninism but adopted the viewpoint of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci that a worldwide communist state could only be achieved gradually. It was to be a “revolution by infiltration.” He said, “Liberation Theology was a perfectly faithful exercise of Gramsci’s principles.”

Martin wrote that “The most powerful religious orders of the Roman Church—Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Maryknollers—all committed themselves to Liberation Theology.”

In addition to Gutiérrez, one of the speakers at this week’s Vatican conference is Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N.’s Millennium Project, an advocate of a global tax that could impose a cost of $845 billion from the U.S. alone. Sachs is speaking at a panel discussion on “Growing inequalities: a challenge for the one human family.”

Sachs previously appeared at a Vatican conference on “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility,” which was held from May 2 – 6, 2014.  It was held under the authority of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

A joint statement published after the close of that Vatican conference called for Sustainable Development Goals “to guide planetary-scale actions after 2015.”

It said, “To achieve these goals will require global cooperation, technological innovations that are within reach, and supportive economic and social policies at the national and regional levels, such as the taxation and regulation of environmental abuses, limits to the enormous power of transnational corporations and a fair redistribution of wealth. It has become abundantly clear that Humanity’s relationship with Nature needs to be undertaken by cooperative, collective action at all levels—local, regional, and global.”

This week’s Caritas conference includes consideration of a “strategic framework” for the years 2015 to 2019 that quoted Francis as calling on every Christian “to be an instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor…”

In building “a civilization of love,” the document urges the “transforming [of] unjust systems and structures” and desires an outcome in which “Justice is attained with respect to climate change and the use of natural resources…”

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, explained what all of this means in simple language. “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” she said. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change…It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

The pope’s left-wing supporters at the Catholic Climate Covenant are ecstatic over his upcoming encyclical on ecology and climate change and believe it can be the catalyst for this deliberate transformation. Dan Misleh of the Catholic Climate Covenant tells his supporters that his group is creating what he calls “an educational, inspirational video” on how to stop global warming and developing new programs to help Catholics “reduce their carbon footprint.”

Members of his climate coalition include:

  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Migration and Refugee Services
  • Catholic Charities USA
  • Catholic Relief Services
  • Catholic Health Association of the United States
  • Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
  • Conference of Major Superiors of Men
  • Carmelite NGO
  • Catholic Rural Life
  • Franciscan Action Network
  • National Council of Catholic Women
  • Leadership Conference of Women Religious
  • Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
  • National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry
  • Sisters of Mercy of the Americas

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

China Makes Major Moves To Ban Islam


Apparently, China realizes what the West doesn’t – bet you never thought you’d read that here – namely, that Islam is very dangerous. It’s kind of ironic that the oppressive nation sees what free nations don’t: Islam will turn nasty. It always does. Everywhere the religion/political ideology has been given an inch, they’ve taken a mile. Like a rabid dog, once it gets strong enough, it will bite us.

So what is China doing? It’s declaring an all-out war to make sure Islam doesn’t take over and never gains the strength to attack them. So let me simplify it:

– Female head-coverings are banned. Period. 

– Men are discouraged from growing long beards (often poorly grown ones, might I add).

– Even Islamic restaurants are forced to sell cigarettes and drinks. And …

– They must display them prominently. Any business owner who does not follow this order…will lose their business. Gone.

They’re not tolerating Islam at all. That simple. China sees what’s happening to the West. It sees what happened in France, throughout the European world, in Boston, and even in Texas. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg! They see it, and they’ve decided to stop any kind of political Islamic plague before it grows out of control.

In other words: China learns. Unlike our inept government, it realizes, ‘Hey, Islam wants destroy us.’ It realizes that Islam is political in nature, not just religious. Don’t get me wrong: communism is terrible, but it’s also what absolves China from the shackling burdens of political correctness. They’d rather survive than be politically correct.

Ah well. Maybe one day, the West will realize that freedom can’t exist for those who want to take your freedom. I mean, that’d kinda be like telling your murderer it’s his right to murder you. Wait… what?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Newly Unearthed Footage Shows Obama Confirming ‘Frank’ Is Frank Marshall Davis

In his 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama never discussed the identity of the mysterious “Frank” who had given him important advice on growing up black in what was described as a white racist world. We learned in 2008 that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party who was the subject of a 600-page FBI file. Still, the major media never asked Obama about this important relationship during his growing up years in Hawaii.

Now, in an extraordinary development, video of Obama explicitly and openly identifying “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis has suddenly surfaced on the Internet. The footage is said to have been recorded on September 20, 1995, with the program originally airing on Channel 37 Cambridge Municipal Television as an episode of the show, The Author Series.

It’s not clear how many saw this program when it aired. For some reason, this “From the Vault” Barack Obama presentation was just recently posted on YouTube. In the video, Obama is introduced as a Harvard Law School student and President of the Harvard Law Review. He discusses “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis at about 8:37 in the video.

In his remarks, Obama never identifies Davis as a communist or even a leftist. But the remarks do reflect the significant influence that Davis had over his young life as he was growing up in Hawaii. Obama talks about how Davis “schools” him on the subject of race relations. The term implies a teacher-student relationship the two of them had, confirming what we had reported back in 2008 — that Davis had functioned as Obama’s “mentor.”

It’s important to understand what Obama is saying here. Getting ready to read directly from his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama talks about the passages ending with “me having a conversation with a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps, a black man from Kansas, named Frank, actually at the time a fairly well-known poet named Frank Marshall Davis, who had moved to Hawaii and lived there, and so I have a discussion with him about the kinds of frustrations I’m having, and he sort of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations…”

Davis was indeed a black poet. His works included attacks on Christianity. One Davis poem referred to Christ irreverently as a “nigger.” Davis was himself an atheist.

However, Davis was better known as a communist propagandist whose work for the Communist Party in Hawaii earned him surveillance by the FBI and placement on its “security index.” Davis was also a pornographer who engaged in bizarre sexual practices, even pedophilia.

Needless to say, Obama’s willingness to identify “Frank” as Davis before this audience raises questions as to why “Frank” wasn’t identified by his full name—Frank Marshall Davis—in the book itself. Obama made references to “Frank” 22 times throughout his book. Paul Kengor notes that Obama’s audio version of Dreams from My Father omitted every reference to “Frank” that was in the book. Those omissions were clearly designed to keep people from asking questions about “Frank,” since Obama was considering a run for the presidency.

Today, in 2015, discovering film of Obama identifying “Frank” as Davis is confirmation of the obvious. It doesn’t make a lot of difference politically, since Obama is serving out his second term. But it could have made a difference seven years ago, in 2008, when we identified “Frank” as Davis, during Obama’s campaign for his first term in office.

The clip of Obama talking about Davis during his 1995 Cambridge presentation is important for other reasons, however.

By his own admission, Obama was preoccupied with his own feelings and thoughts about race relations. He saw himself as an “angry young man” whose father was absent from his life. He said he was “without father figures around who might guide and steer my anger.”

That’s significant because it’s clear, from the passages he reads, that Davis became that father figure. Davis was indeed picked by his white grandfather to be a role model or father figure for the young Barack Obama.

In the passages he read back in 1995, Obama discussed inviting some white friends to a black party and seeing them squirm. “They’re trying to tap their foot to the beat and being extraordinarily friendly,” he said. They are trying to fit in but they are uncomfortable and they tell Obama they want to leave. Obama concluded, “What I have had to put up with every day of my life is something that they find so objectionable that they can’t even put up with a day.”

This is like a revelation to Obama about the world of white racism. All of this, he says, “triggers” something in his head and he comprehends a “new map of the world.” He gets a sense of the anger and betrayal in society and even in his own family, where he is being raised by his white grandfather, “Gramps,” and white grandmother, “Toot.” This leads him to seek advice from “Frank.” Frank Marshall Davis then “sort of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations,” Obama says.

The passages that he reads from the book before the Cambridge audience include a discussion of when his own white grandmother was accosted by a black panhandler. Davis told Obama that his grandmother was right to be scared and that “She understands that black people have reason to hate.”

In other words, Davis did not encourage Obama to pursue racial harmony or reconciliation. He told Obama that blacks have a reason, or right, to hate.

It is significant that, back in 1995, Obama decided to read these passages. They clearly reflect what he is all about.

This was also clear to us from reading the book and understanding what Davis was all about. We wrote a column back in 2012 that was titled, “Reason to Hate: Barack Obama’s Racist Roots.” Paul Kengor’s book on Davis, The CommunistFrank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, examined in more detail the Davis mentality and ideology that shaped Obama.

Kengor’s book documented that Davis:

  • Considered American racism a “disease” that “Red Russia” had solved
  • Wrote in a column on July 20, 1946, that the Soviet Union had, “in less than a generation,” abolished “discrimination and racism”
  • Wrote that “the only people” Winston Churchill cared about were “the white people of the British empire”
  • Labeled the Marshall Plan for Western Europe after World War II a form of white imperialism, designed to “help maintain European empires at the expense of exploited dark colonial peoples”
  • Considered anti-communism a form of racism.

In the video, Obama says that Davis’s remarks about blacks having “a reason to hate” had a profound impact on him. “The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment,” he wrote. “I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone.”

During his talk at the Cambridge Public Library, Obama also said some nice things about white people. While he faulted America for not making “a serious effort” to address racial problems, he did say that “Americans are decent people,” and commented that some things have changed for the better.

But one can sense that the anger is still there.

Looking back at this presentation, and taking into account the policies of the Obama administration, there can be no doubt that Davis’ racism did have a profound impact on Obama.

As we wrote back in 2012, after examining the racist outlook of Davis, “The Obama administration’s tactics are to exploit and manipulate racial and ethnic differences for political gain. This is not an accident but a deliberate political strategy that one can find in the mind of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who ‘educated Obama during his critical growing up years. Black people, Davis told Obama, have ‘reason to hate.’ The evidence shows that Obama has incorporated that hatred in his policies and pronouncements.”

Now that Obama’s personal confirmation of the critical role that Davis played in helping to formulate his worldview on racial politics has been made public, perhaps The Washington Post will admit that those of us who warned about Davis’s influence on Obama were right. But we doubt it. The Post won’t ever admit that it missed this story.

Davis’ communism had an impact on Obama as well. Perhaps racism was the hook that got Obama into the Marxist movement. Like Davis, it looks like Obama does see Marxism as the answer to white racism. And that helps explain why the true identity of “Frank” was concealed during Obama’s run for the presidency.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Morality According To The 3 Percent Resembles Communism, ISIS

Screenshot/ABC News

The hullabaloo over false information being propagated about Indiana’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) reveals a much more serious underlying problem in America.

Morality according to the 3 Percent (the gay community in America), is defined by imposing conformity, control, coercion, and oppression over those who disagree with their definition of equality, fairness, tolerance, or even love.

The 3 Percent’s “outrage” cannot be about equal rights, as same-sex couples already benefit from civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage, adoption, and fostering children, in addition to receiving health benefits and other legal rights.

Nor can it be about fairness. I recently learned that Barronelle Stuzman, the former owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, had befriended and served for nine years the same homosexual couple that put her out of business. Not once in the nine years that she knew them had she ever refused to sell them flowers. It was only until they asked her to violate her biblical beliefs that they vigilantly went to great lengths to destroy her livelihood—unless she converted to their belief system.

This convert-or-die scenario isn’t fair or legal, but it’s happening throughout the country—and the world—in different extremes.

Killing Christians’ businesses, ability to earn a living, and freedom to worship and love is no different than communist oppression that dictates: conform, change, move, convert to a particular belief system, or be punished.

Christians value life—and human choice—because they understand that God created both. They seek to protect God-given rights and value a person’s purpose, meaning, and worth–and the societal order God created to encourage human flourishing.

No rational person, even a child, could agree with the 3 Percent’s moral claim that “I can do whatever I want, but you can’t.” If that reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion, then there could be no objection to those who choose to murder, cheat on, steal from, or have sex with any person or animal they so choose. If a person can love and/or marry whomever they want, then Mormons should legally be allowed to love and marry multiple wives–as should Muslims, including legally marrying children. In fact, according to this reasoning, it should be legal for anyone to love and marry a goat, pig, or cow.

What is best for society, as anthropological and social science research has shown, and children continue to publicly state, is what Christians advocate: children need both a mother and a father. What is best for children, for future generations, is what is best for society.

Gay-rights activists are advocating that bullying a friend, neighbor, or particular religious group is permissible, and even legal, when that person disagrees with them. Is this a lesson children should be taught? That rights and tolerance are only valid if someone conforms to the 3 Percent’s definition of morality?

And by the way, why are gay-rights activists not demanding that Muslim businesses and mosques close? Do they not know that the Qur’an instructs them to be killed? Where are the gay-rights activists demanding that Muslims cannot practice their religious beliefs, which include killing gays?

Gay-rights activists argue they are being discriminated against because of whom they love. No Christian is telling them they can’t love. What Christians advocate is that God’s love is always in our best interest, especially when it corrects, guides, and instructs.

Christian love affirms a gay person’s right to life—because Christians know life is God-given. Love requires speaking truth according to God’s Word. No society has ever lasted, let alone flourished, due to non-procreating same-sex couples. In fact, the opposite has occurred in societies, as is historically evidenced and most recently visible throughout Europe.

Barronelle Stuzman didn’t behead her gay customers. She loved them and loved God, but also would not violate her religious beliefs even if that meant losing her livelihood.

The question for the gay community is: “If it’s discriminatory to not love whoever you choose, then why are you objecting to Christians loving Jesus– or actually prohibiting them from doing so?”

Easter reminds Christians of this convert-or-die mentality.

Jesus was killed by Roman soldiers—the government—because of what He claimed about himself. Every apostle was killed, except for John, because they preached salvation alone through Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead. In the name of Roman law, near-genocidal destruction of Christians occurred for three centuries. Genocide continues today throughout the Levant, as does Jew-hatred in America and Europe because of this very “convert or die” mentality.

If silencing those who oppose the gay agenda is the standard in America for freedom, liberty, and law, the question for the gay community is: how is this approach different from First Century Rome, communism, or ISIS?

“Conversion or death” presents itself in many forms. In this case, it’s the 3 Percent dictating to the rest of society: “convert to our version of morality—or be silenced, punished, or forfeit your livelihood.”

This column was originally published by The Washington Times.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom