JOHN KERRY SINKS TO CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM

Actually, his batting average was closer to .100 than .900.

We'll have to agree to disagree, wideawake. It's looking better than .900.

LIBERALS’ SECRET WEAPON: CONSERVATIVES WHO DON’T READ

The Senate committee that was determined to censure McCarthy ended up having to drop the matter of McCarthy’s Wheeling speech entirely. A fact-filled memo detailing the committee’s findings concluded that McCarthy had said he had the names of 57 security risks, not 205.
The truth about McCarthy’s Wheeling speech, including the committee’s memo finding that McCarthy was telling the truth, and a newspaper article reprinting the speech before it became a object of obsession by Democrats, is given in M. Stanton Evans’ monumental book, “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.”
Moreover, contrary to the nonsense about McCarthy not being able to name the 57 specific individuals, the very day he got back to Washington, he gave a six-hour speech on the Senate floor, providing details about the problematic State Department employees, chapter and verse. He did not “name names” because that was not his point.
As McCarthy said, some State Department employees with communist associations might be innocent. His point was: The Democrats were still refusing to take Soviet espionage seriously by investigating these preposterous risks on the government payroll.
Far from recklessly smearing people, McCarthy described each employee as a “case” and cited such evidence as their being identified as Soviet spies in FBI reports, by fellow spies and by the State Department itself. He reported their connections to known agents, attendance at “Youth International” meetings in Russia and repeated contacts with known Soviet espionage groups.
These were not baseless charges. And as we now know, they were absolutely true.

McCarthy actually turned up quite a few Communist small fry who were sacrificed to protect those higher in the Soviet agent food chain.

All things considered, the McCarthy legacy was a strengthened Soviet operation against the USA. Of course, part of their success was their ability to depend upon the American press for high level support.

Jack Kennedy? Fervent McCarthy supporter.

Fortunately for science, and unfortunately for Kerry, the Scientific Method encourages rather than blackballs critical inquiry and scientific debate.

Traditional science... yes.

But liberal 'science' -no. In liberal science facts are dependent on being popular. If an idea sounds cool - and everyone who's an A-lister luvs it - then it's 'settled'... and no one can debate it.

You have gotten a full ration of blowback over the use of the term "McCarthyism" in the article. The fundamental problem is that "McCarthyism" is Newspeak - but then, so is "liberal" and "moderate" and "progressive" and "centrist" - and also "conservative."
Before the 1920s, the word "liberal" applied to anyone who is now called "conservative." Its meaning was inverted in the 1920s (according to Safire's New Political Dictionary). American "conservatism" conserves freedom and the ability to do different things - a strange form of "conservatism." "Liberals" and "progressives" and "centrists" and "moderates" - all names for the same political sentiments - want to leave the coal, petroleum, natural gas, etc. in the ground right where it is. Just like Prince Philip does. And that is a strange form of "progressivism."
There is one unifying theme to all this Newspeak: none of it could have happened if it were opposed by journalism. In fact, it's pretty obvious that journalism had to onboard and pushing for these Newspeak word meanings. Why is journalism unified?
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
According to that saying, the Associated Press newswire - constituting as it does a continual virtual meeting of all major American news organizations for over a century and a half - must have resulted in a conspiracy against the public long ago.
Why would journalism specifically conspire against Republicans, and against people who get things done? I put it to you that, if not constrained by competition, journalism naturally embraces the the idea, not that "It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena," but the opposite proposition that nothing actually matters except PR.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.