Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Usurpation of our Constitution

Obama-Leftists Destroying Constitution

Robert Smith writes about America’s Left eroding the U.S. Constitution.

JRH 3/31/15
Usurpation of our Constitution

By Robert G. Smith
Sent 3/30/2015 9:40 AM

From the lowest city official to the top office in our country, our Constitution is being usurped~~ Yes even in the Supreme Court.

Our Chief Justice, John Roberts has taken on a role [overstepping the] House of Representatives and ruled that a law [Obamacare] was a tax even though there was no tax mentioned in the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advised the Egyptian parliament not to use our Constitution as a model as it is out dated, even though it has served us well for 224 years and is as suitable now as it was at its inception. Justice Elena Kagan actively advocates the use of Shariah Law in our Constitution. They both should be impeached.

Eric Holder's Justice Department, with full knowledge of President Barak Obama, refuses to enforce the laws he is obligated to enforce under our Constitution.

The President has, by executive order, made recess appointments to posts that require congressional [approval] even though Congress was not in recess but on holiday closure.

He has endeavored to put disclaimers in the Second Amendment even though there are none [See HERE and HERE]. He has called the Benghazi, the IRS, and NSA problems, phony scandals but has done nothing to enlighten the American people as to what occurred.

New Jersey is attempting to pass a law that would allow police officers to seize your cellphone and examine the contents- a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments of our Constitution. [See HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE]   

Local governments are using medical information against patients- again a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments. And medical ethics concerning releasing your medical information without your acquiescence. [Blog Editor: In full disclosure I can’t place my finger on recent media coverage in which “local governments” used “medical information against patients” pertaining to a Constitutional issue. In act of pure speculation perhaps Robert Smith is referring to HERE, HERE and/or HERE)

These are but a few examples of the misuse of our Constitutional rights.

Don't you think it is time to take a serious stand against a serious problem and put a stop to the usurpation of OUR CONSTITUTION?

By PSG [ret] R.G. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
All links and all content enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Robert G. Smith

Monday, March 30, 2015

Obama's Bitter Fruit

Iran Nuke Missile toon

Most sane people understand a nuclear deal with Iran without verification that nuclear weapons are not being developed is insane. It is apparent President Barack Hussein Obama does not comprehend a valid and open verification process is needed pertaining to Iran keeping a promise to develop uranium enrichment for only peaceful nuclear energy rather than the stealth production of nuclear weapons.
Justin Smith shines a light on the untrustworthiness of Iran’s promises pertaining to nuclear weaponry. The key to this mistrust is Iran’s nuclear facility at Parchin. For context here is some of the exposed nefariousness one can glean about Iran’s Parchin nuclear facility:
On October 9, 2014, we posted on the mysterious explosions that occurred at the Parchin Military testing site.  The Islamic Republic attributed the blast to an unnamed “foreign intelligence power”.   We noted the findings of nuclear watchdog, the Washington, DC –based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) headed by former UN inspector David Albright:
Earlier today, it has been reported that the imagery shows that the damage is consistent with an attack against bunkers and that the locality is adjacent to another installation where work was being conducted that involves controlled detonation of fuses intended to serve as triggers for nuclear devices.
However, it is important to note that there is no evidence of either an attack or nuclear weapon-related activities at this specific site. There may be confusion over alleged high explosive nuclear weapon-related activities at another site at Parchin that occurred prior to 2004.
Fast forward to satellite imagery taken on January 31, 2015 that raised more questions about what is going on at Parchin, a site barred by Iran from IAEA inspections. Further, it is excluded from the final P5+1 agreement with a target date of March 24th looming.  ISIS recently published its assessment of new activity at Parchin, noting that the asphalting was consistent with hiding prior activities, perhaps the explosions that occurred there last October.  The ISIS report concluded:
Over the last three years, Iran has substantially modified the Parchin site. Like its actions at the Lavisan site, Iran’s more recent modifications at Parchin are probably aimed at concealing past nuclear weapons-related activities from the IAEA and the P5+1, who are in charge of negotiating a long term agreement with Iran. Tehran has a long history of hiding its nuclear facilities and conducting secret, illicit nuclear procurement activities to outfit its nuclear programs. The removal of key economic and financial sanctions will depend on a variety of factors in a long term agreement, including significant cuts in Iran’s centrifuge program. But the lifting of these sanctions also depends on Iran stopping its nuclear-related concealment activities and its illicit nuclear procurements and addressing the IAEA’s concerns about past and possibly on-going work on nuclear weapons.
ISIS further commented on the wisdom of the pending final agreement:
Prospects for a comprehensive agreement dim if Iran remains intransigent on Parchin. A deal that does not include Iran addressing … READ THE REST (Satellite Imagery Analysis of Iran’s Parchin Military site Question Nuclear Deal; By Jerry Gordon; New English Review - The Iconoclast; 2/13/15)
Iran Nuke Sites Map 
JRH 3/30/15
Obama's Bitter Fruit
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 3/28/2015 9:15 PM
America will point to this juncture in history one day, and it will note that this was the critical moment when the Grand Fool, Barack Obama, and his Court Jester, John Kerry, failed to recognize the greatest threat to America and the world in the 21st century. Ignoring all sound reason and stark warnings from numerous U.S. and world leaders, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 4th speech before Congress, they are proceeding with a bad agreement that does not prevent the growth and perfection of a broad Iranian nuclear weapons delivery system, and they are paving a path to nuclear weapons for the Revolutionary Guard and a rogue regime and state-sponsor of terrorism.
Iran's nuclear weapons program has long been evident. Its heavy water nuclear facility at Arak is one proof, since this type of facility is only good for making weapons grade plutonium. Iran's high explosive components for implosion-type nuclear weapons are made at Parchin.
Parchin has been mentioned numerous times by the U.K., France and Germany in these ongoing negotiations, from which Iran hopes to gain relief from all economic sanctions. However, Iran has refused to allow any further inspection of Parchin, since 2005, and it now says further inspections are out of the question.
Any arms deals most usually demands verification of one's compliance. And due to Iran's resistance to allow for proper verification measures, most of America is asking, "Why are we negotiating with Iran at all at this point?"
While Iran cannot be trusted, there is a liar leading the U.S., who wants to side-step the Senate's advise and consent role, even though in 2013 Obama stated that "the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad." Look where the U.S. stands now and compare it to Obama's March 6, 2012 statement: "... My policy is to prevent [Iran] from getting a nuclear weapon, because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region ... it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists."

Shortly after Netanyahu's speech in the halls of Congress, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal Saud warned, in a BBC interview, that any terms granting Iran nuclear power would result in a massive wide-open arms race across the Middle East. Similar concerns are currently being voiced by Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and many other nations.
Iran is already in flagrant violation of past U.N. Security Council resolutions, and yet they are proceeding in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons and inter-continental ballistic missiles. And contrary to the purpose of dissuading Iran from this course, the U.S. and other nations now seem unwilling to stop Iran from going nuclear, as they concede Iran's right to retain its current capabilities.
The price-tag on Obama's dismal legacy is a high one, since Ayatollah Khamenei demands immediate relief from all sanctions. That means more money in Iranian coffers and an increased ability to assist the likes of Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and murderous Shia militia in Iraq. Enabling this terrorist regime to reshape the Middle East through force of arms, slaughtering innocents and nuclear blackmail certainly promises peace will elude the world throughout this century.
Well within their rights, duty and authority to serve and protect the United States, Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking committee member Eliot Engel (D-NY) and 365 House members sent a bipartisan letter to Obama, dated March 20th, that specified in part: "... Congress must be convinced that [the agreement's] terms foreclose any pathway to a [nuclear] bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief ... Finally ... it is critical that we also consider Iran's destabilizing role in the region."
Similarly, just days previous, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) and 46 other Republican senators published an "open letter" to Iran and its leaders. It essentially stated that any agreement with President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could be rescinded by any successor and was basically not worth the paper it is written on, without Senate approval.
Nothing has changed in the thirty-five years after Iran took U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days or after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. As noted by Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel on February 14, 2015: "The Ayatollah Khamenei has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal __ 'the annihilation and destruction' of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on his deadly promise: And, just weeks ago, as Khamenei rallied his country to endorse the nuclear negotiations, he joined the crowd in their chants of "Death to America."
During his 39 minute speech before the U.S. Congress, Benjamin Netanyahu told lawmakers and visitors, "This deal won't be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control ... a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare." At one point, Bibi turned to the 86 year old Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, who sat with Sara Netanyahu in the Congressional gallery, and poignantly continued, "I wish I could promise You, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past."
Much in the manner that Czechoslovakia was betrayed at the 1938 Munich Conference, Israel is being betrayed by Obama's executive agreement with Iran, and Israel is now left alone to mount a military operation that can destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel can accomplish this, just as it did at Osirak in 1981, but a much more thorough job would result from U.S. and European assistance. A pre-emptive strike is the only answer to a nuclear armed Iran that most certainly will bring the world to the brink of destruction.
America is nearing a terrible milestone in its history. It must not refuse to stand against Iran's naked aggression, just as it initially refused to stand against the Nazis, or history will weigh our nation in the balance and find it wanting. America must recover its moral character and rebuke Obama's bitter fruit of appeasement. Considerably less danger exists in a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities than going forward with a bitter fruit that only promises a dark future filled with exponentially larger conflagrations, massive wars and chaos.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
© Justin O. Smith

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Does American Deism Negate a Christian Heritage?

Posted by John R. Houk
© March 29, 2015

My central contention is even if the majority of the Founding Fathers were more Deist than Christian, American Deists swung toward Christian principles and Christian Morality as central to Constitutional governing. The Founding Fathers that were Deists were Critical of Christianity, yet they criticized as unbelievable the supernatural acts recorded in the Bible and NOT the standard of Moral living life in the Bible. Deist Christians felt the Catholic and Protestant Clergy had a history of hypocritical manipulation of the Christian laity which led to internecine wars between Christians when Christian principles would have solved or assuage conflict.

Sustain Govt by 10 Commandments - J. Madison 
As a Deist Madison was critical of Christianity being a part of the Federal government his quote in the picture demonstrates Christian Morality should be promoted.

The original post on SlantRight 2.0 was a Google+ dialogue between myself and Sifu about the God of Christianity being an influence on America’s Founding Fathers. Matthew’s stickling point is that the Founding Fathers were preeminently Deists hence it would be hogwash to believe America has Christian roots.

Matthew gets a little scruffy with me about his concept of Deism as opposed to my thoughts which claim American Deists (in the majority) were quite different than the European Deism influenced by the French Revolution. I contend that even if the majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists their mindset was still one that Christian morality and ethics is the foundation for good governance. Thus I answered Matthew’s snarky question, “Do I need to post a link of the definition of the word? Geez man, read a book,” with a lot of quotes from those who examine Christian/American Deism vs. French/European Deism.

Jefferson- Moral Principles of Jesus

As a Deist Jefferson was critical of Christianity being a part of the Federal government his quote in the picture demonstrates Christian Morality should be promoted.

JRH 3/29/15

Matthew Jeffero If you looked at most of the founding fathers they were deist. Pesty (I suspect Matthew means “pesky”) facts, kind of gets in the way. March 21 at 11:11am

John Houk Actually Matthew Most of the Founding Fathers were Christian Deists. Meaning they believed that Christian Morality makes for good government. This is unlike French influenced European Deists that tended more toward libertine atheism and an unnatural hatred for the Christian paradigm in any fashion. Those are the pesky facts. March 21 at 12:10pm

Franklin- Moral System of Jesus & Christianity best ever 
Reputed as a Deist Benjamin Franklin still believed the Moral system and the Faith of Christianity was the best the World had ever seen; thus it is the morality of Christianity that makes good people.

Matthew Jeffero Do you know deism is. Do I need to post a link of the definition of the word? Geez man, read a book. March 21 at 2:39pm

John Houk Okay Matthew here is something to read:

Two Paths for Deism:

What few people know is there are two deisms, the atheistic and religiously hostile deism of the French Revolution, and the more amicable deism of America and England. They posit two differing worldviews on issues of liberty and tolerance. English Deism and Freemasonry became the foundation of the American Revolution while the Enlightenment French Humanism became the basis of the bloody French Revolution and later Marxism and its offshoots.

What is called radical deism today is better called deistic Humanism. This is a philosophy, not a religion. We find at its head Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, the mass murderer Maximilian Robespierre, and the radical Jacobins. The Humanist French Revolution sought to destroy all traditional European institutions including Christianity, seeking to replace this with "enlightened" philosophy and reason as a basis for society. Oh yes, being led by 'enlightened' despots.

This radical deism did much to undermine revealed religions such as Christianity. The result has not been 'enlightenment' of the masses, but the rise irrationality and secular extremism. …

We can call it what we will be deistic Humanism, French deism, etc. it's not a religion, but a secular philosophy. Voltaire had replaced the original understanding of God with Aristotle's Prime Mover, which science has discredited today.

The French Revolution was based on reason alone and led to only bloodshed and tyranny. Reason without an underpinning of God or a higher power leads only to ruin. …

The Five Articles of Classical Deism

In England, Deism was critically concerned with the origins of religion, but positive in moral and religious affirmation. Early English Deists believed that the Bible contained important truths, but they rejected the concept that it was divinely inspired or inerrant. They were leaders in the study of the Bible as a historical (rather than an inspired, revealed) document. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book "De Veritate," (1624), he described the "Five Articles" of English Deists:

[1] belief in the existence of a single supreme God

[2] humanity's duty is to revere God

[3] linkage of worship with practical morality

[4] God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins

[5] good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death.

Christian deism

Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings—but not divinity—of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1]

It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categories—non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"—a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.

Christian deists see no paradox in adopting the values and ideals espoused by Jesus without believing he was God. Without providing examples or citations, one author maintains, "A number of influential 17th- and 18th-century thinkers claimed for themselves the title of 'Christian deist' because they accepted both the Christian religion based on revelation and a deistic religion based on natural reason. This deistic religion was consistent with Christianity but independent of any revealed authority. Christian deists often accepted revelation because it could be made to accord with natural or rational religion."[11]

… (Christian deism; Wikipedia; This page was last modified on 4 December 2014, at 12:03)

“Christian Deism is a natural religion that maintains a firm belief in God the Creator; and strives to follow the natural commandments of God, as taught by one of the greatest teachers of natural religion, Jesus of Nazareth.” (WHAT IS CHRISTIAN DEISM? Christian Deism; © Copyright 2015 - Christian Deism)

Also Read:

Adams on Constitution - Made for Christian Moral People

John Adams as the second President of the United States of America was definitely closer to traditional Christianity than many of the other Founders.

G. Washington- Rightly Govern ONLY with God & Bible
The Founding Father photos with quotes followed by my micro-comment were not a part of the original comment left on the Facebook comment posts left on the group REPUBLICANS - CONSERVATIVES -TEA PARTY PATRIOTS- RIGHT WING AMERICANS. Minor editing work with good old fashioned spellcheck. No slight is meant to Matthew. Comments are typically something written on the fly and misspellings, grammatical errors and so on happen to all of us making comments.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

ISIS training camp at Cornell?

Joseph Scaffido musing ISIS Speaker at Cornell
Joseph Scaffido musing ISIS Speaker at Cornell

Occasional post submitter Paul Sutliff recommended I watch and share this Project Veritas video exposé on Cornell University’s apparent support for Islamic terrorists in the name of idiotic Multicultural Diversity.

The Project Veritas video was sent as both an exposé and fund raiser email. If you a person with extra dough you should seriously consider supporting these guys. Here’s an excerpt from their About Page:

Founded by James O’Keefe, the mission of Project Veritas is:
Investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society.

Project Veritas is the most effective non-profit on the national scene, period. 

We’ve had dozens of successes, many of which are detailed on this site.  The pattern is clear:

Project Veritas launches an investigation with the placement of our undercover journalists. The rollout of our findings creates a growing and uncontainable firestorm of press coverage. Corruption is exposed, leaders resign, and organizations are shut down.
We get immediate, measurable and impactful results, and our return on investment is unparalleled.

Project Veritas is a registered 501(c)3 organization.  Project Veritas does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues that are raised through its investigations, nor do we encourage others to do so. Our goal is to inform the public of wrongdoing and allow the public to make judgments on the issues.

JRH 3/28/15
ISIS training camp at Cornell?

Email by James O'Keefe
Paul Sutliff sent on 3/25/2015 12:08 PM
Origin: Project Veritas

Allowing an ISIS "freedom fighter" to conduct a training camp for Cornell students is ". . . like bringing in a coach, to do training on a sports team or something."

That's what Joseph Scaffido, Assistant Dean of Students at Cornell, said to our undercover investigator when they discussed creating a campus club focused on aiding Hamas and ISIS.

Does that outrage you as much as it does me?

You won't believe what else Scaffido had to say. You can watch the four-minute video here:

Published by veritasvisuals
Published on Mar 24, 2015

Joseph Scaffido, Assistant Dean at Cornell University, is captured on hidden camera advising a Project Veritas investigative journalist on how to start and fund a pro-ISIS club on campus, how to obtain funding to send care packages to ISIS and Hamas, and astonishingly, how to bring a member of ISIS to Cornell to run a “training camp.”


Other outlandish ideas Scaffido agreed with included sending care packages to ISIS, providing funding sources for the club, and allowing the club to bring an ISIS "freedom fighter" to campus to give a lecture.

He said "programs like that really do have a good place here at Cornell."

After you watch the video, please forward it to your friends and family — even people who may not agree with your political views.

We want to spread this video far and wide to raise awareness about the lunacy that's going on at college campuses around the country.

And can I count on you to continue to support our work by making a tax-deductible donation?

This is just the first story in our new campus investigation series. So watch for more videos in the coming weeks.

I hope you enjoy the video.

In Truth,

James O'Keefe
Project Veritas

P.S. Take a few minutes to watch this shocking video: Watch Cornell video here.

This is a story that the mainstream media will never cover unless we force them to through our undercover investigations.

And as I said earlier, I hope you'll share the video with your friends, family and neighbors.

Thank you for continued support.

1214 West Boston Post Road No. 156
Mamaroneck, NY 10543

Friday, March 27, 2015

Ted Cruz, Chris Matthews and McCarthyism

John R. Houk
(with hat tip to Robert Smith)
© March 27, 2015

Published on Jan 6, 2015

Robert Smith sent a submission that isn’t really long enough for a stand-alone post, but Robert’s point should be taken into consideration. This is the email that Robert sent on 3/24/15:

Today, 3-24-15, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, accused Senator Ted Cruz of being another Joe McCarthy.
Matthews intended this accusation to be derogatory to Senator Cruz, however looking back at history this remark could be considered praise of the highest order for Senator Cruz.

The 1995 declassification of the Venona Files absolutely vindicated Senator Joe McCarthy of any wrong doing and it is a historical fact that every one of those named by Senator McCarthy were indeed either a communist or a communist sympathizer. Not one time was he found to be in error.

When someone says "McCarthyism" to me in a derogatory manner I know they are liberal leftists or know very little about the history of our country.

I don’t know what they’re teaching in schools today about Senator Joe McCarthy but I suspect it is still pejorative misinformation. I was a child in the 1960s and a teen most of the 1970s. Education in Public School and in my college experience was still treating Joe McCarthy as a pariah. Television documentaries and biographies of McCarthy portrayed as a monster who ruined peoples’ lives with false accusations as a Communist in the 1950s.

The reality is Senator Joe McCarthy was actually validly exposing Soviet Communist infiltration in our American government and classified sensitive civilian work. The only place Senator McCarthy was out of line with was in going after entertainment and journalistic media individuals as Communists. The political climate of the 1950s and early 1960s was the fear of a Soviet Russian threat of nuclear war aimed at ridding American citizens of their Constitutional Rights and even their lives via a nuclear holocaust. I mean remember as a kid practicing drills for nuclear attacks with instructions to hide under our classroom desks (as if that would have provided any protection from aFallout Shelter Signs nuclear blast and ensuing radiation fallout). In the small town I grew up in I even recall building with yellow signs indicating Fallout Shelters in case of a nuke attack. All those ineffective drills and practices have ended long ago.

There was an authentic fear of nuclear destruction among Joe-American citizens in the 1950s and 1960s. AND Americans were fully aware those nuclear threats emanated primarily from the Communist Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR – Russian Federation today). So if you were an American that were deluded enough to believe a totalitarian Communist State would better humanity into a humanist utopia non-existent of religion, devoid of military conflict, no ownership and NO individual Rights for decision making or choices of a life path; THEN you would not be a popular person in your neighborhood or community.

Ergo when citizens exercised their First Amendment to be a political and social moron by placing stock into Communist ideology were ostracized from their Middle Class and Upper Middle Class jobs. ON THE OTHER HAND those were the days Soviet Communists were actually recruiting “Fellow Travellers” to inspire the concept of a proletariat revolution to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replacing with it the false humanist visions of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. The Communist future utopia was a lie in the past and it still is a lie. It is too bad America’s entertainment media and journalistic Mainstream Media have romanticized Marxism under various deceitful names (e.g. Progressivism) so much no one is concerned that another Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (friends of President Barack Hussein Obama) could be your agitating neighbor next door.

Senator McCarthy had the cajones to expose Soviet Communism in the U.S. government. Here is an example of Venona Files revelations that show McCarthy was vigilantly more correct than a delusional paranoid loon:

To give you an idea of how serious [the] Soviet infiltration [was] check out this 1995 article from the Baltimore Sun:

An aggressive Soviet spy network penetrated a key strategy meeting between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during World War II and tried to recruit friends of first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, according to decoded Soviet messages released yesterday by the National Security Agency.

NSA declassified 250 messages sent between Moscow and the Soviet spy headquarters in New York in 1942 and 1943.

They confirm that a number of wartime American intelligence agents were secretly working for the Kremlin.

The messages from the so-called "Venona" project document the tireless efforts of Soviet leader Josef Stalin to recruit agents across the United States and Mexico.

But from the timing, NSA historians concluded that the still-unidentified "19" was a high-level agent who had penetrated Roosevelt's inner circle and attended at least part of the two-week conference in Washington and Williamsburg, Va., code-named Trident, a major strategy meeting.

The 250 messages are the second of a series of planned releases of the cables intercepted between 1942 and 1946 and decoded and analyzed over many years under the American code name Venona. (Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT 3; By John R. Houk; SlantRight 2.0; 8/20/14)

And a book review from Bernie Reeves of M. Stanton Evans’ McCarthy biography entitled “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies” talks about validating the McCarthy quest to stifle out Communism:

In 1995, the NSA and CIA turned the wheel of history toward the truth by declassifying the Venona files, intercepted messages from Moscow to their American agents from 1942 until 1964. And lo and behold there they are: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lachlan Currie and hundreds of other American Soviet agents working for the US government – code names and all. Not only were these alleged victims guilty, they and their apologists made fools of us all. Yet, what followed in the national press after Venona was resounding silence.

After Venona sank in, despite violent opposition by the usual suspects, some of the more rational members of the intellectual Left – such as the venerated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. – opined that McCarthy may have been right after all, but he was a bad person and he did great harm to innocent people. Then it was back to the same shopworn clichés, such as “McCarthy didn’t uncover one communist.” Actually, according to Venona, he was way short in his estimations, but the anti-McCarthy propaganda machinery churned on to be sure history goes their way. …

Final Verdict

And that’s where things stood until November 2007 with the publication of Blacklisted by M. Stanton Evans, columnist, editor and former director of the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. Drawing on previously classified FBI and governmental files – and new information available from Venona – Evans upends the McCarthy myth and turns the tables on the real guilty parties: Presidents Truman and Eisenhower; a majority of Congress; heads of several government agencies; lawyer Joseph Welch … (Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America
; By John R. Houk; SlantRight 2.0; 4/15/14)

Joe McCarthy - Told-U-So

SO now you can I understand that I completely agree with Robert Smith on the false flag vilification of Senator Joe McCarthy and to comprehend just how much of a deluded Leftist Chris Matthews is for trying to throw mud on Senator Ted Cruz because of his Conservative principles.

To get an idea of Matthews Leftist rant against Senator Cruz read this from Moonbattery:

Peter King isn’t the only moonbat to validate Ted Cruz’s candidacy with an unhinged denunciation that among sensible people serves as an endorsement. Chris “Tweety” Matthews lets loose:

“This guy [Senator Ted Cruz] goes pretty far. I think he fits in the tradition of Father Coughlin and [Joe] McCarthy and, of course, maybe to a lesser extent, Pat Buchanan and, of course, [Bill] O’Reilly. These guys are hard right-wing guys. They look a lot a like. They have that, we call the Black Irish look to them. They don’t smile much.” (Chris Matthews Denounces Ted Cruz for Looking Irish and Not Smiling; By Dave Blount; Moonbattery; 3/25/15)

David Rutz writing for the Washington Free Beacon made these observation about Chris Matthews’ unhinged dislike for Senator Cruz:

MSNBC host Chris Matthews is incredibly proud of his negative comparison of Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) to former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R., Wis.), who rose to prominence in the 1950s for his staunch anti-Communism and controversial methods of political attacks.

So much so that Matthews has made that direct attack at least 31 times on his MSNBC program, Hardball.

It’s the place for politics–or more accurately, the place for Matthews to flip out about Cruz whenever he does something like say Chuck Hagel would make a poor Defense Secretary (McCarthyism!), opposing executive order amnesty (McCarthyism!) or questioning President Obama’s allegiance to Israel (McCarthyism!).

In fact, Matthews, who supposedly opposes judging people for what they look like given his very strong anti-racist credentials, is fond of pointing out Cruz even resembles McCarthy, showing a side-by-side graphic of them during their Senate tenures.

“Ted Cruz reminds me of this guy!” he yelled at one picture.

Actually, he constantly says Cruz reminds him of McCarthy, and he’s made such pronouncements as “Joe McCarthy imitator,” “not since Joe McCarthy have we seen a senator with such sinister self-assuredness,” and “there are echoes of Joe McCarthy there.”

I am with Robert Smith in his email: Matthews called Senator Cruz a McCarthyist as a point of derogatory derision. I suspect Matthews has been so indoctrinated with Leftist hatred that he actually felt he was insulting Senator Cruz’s integrity. Senator Cruz should address Chris Matthews one day and give him a heartfelt thank you and a knowing smile. That would undoubtedly chap the Leftist’s hide.

Chris Matthews scowling
Chris Matthews Leftist Loon

JRH 3/27/15