Utah's Republic

Oak, or should I say “fhayekfan”, I have to agree with Solomon on the comment page. I also failed to see how the professor was wrong in their view of Goodlad. You are still the one who is wrong in your view of Goodlad. You want to make him into a devil who is trying to destroy our children and that is just not the case. You twist and manipulate his quotes into sounding like something evil- when in reality he is one of the only people in this country to try and really reform education so that ALL children in this country could receive a good education. He saw beyond the prejudices and biases that have been rampant in our countries education system since its inception. He wanted to make sure that America was the greatest country on Earth by demanding a good education for every child.
How can you live with yourself by attacking someone who wanted to help others so selflessly? He, personally, did not stand to gain anything from his views of education. Whatever his views on politics, types of governments, or types of economic systems ultimately doesn't matter. He went beyond politics and pushed to improve our entire country. It is sad that you cannot look beyind your politics and try to do the same.

Who is “fhayekfan?” You're the only one using pseudonyms.

I'm sure your posts are well intentioned, but it's obvious we have completely different views of Goodlad. A few years ago I was just a typical slumbering citizen trusting my leaders that they were making the right choices for my childrens' education. Investigations math woke me up. The constructivist approach it uses is favored by Goodlad and his followers. It doesn't produce educational excellence, it produces a higher failure rate of students.

What you say of Goodlad's selfless views is nonsense. Thousands of others have far better views than Goodlad and they give just as selflessly. His views on politics, government, and economic systems most certainly do matter and if you think they don't while he has total influence over our education system, that just turns around all your “sheeple” statements on yourself. You are proving quite well that you are willing to block out anything you don't want to believe your idol has said in order to not accept the truth about him.

The BYU Professor was correct about one thing, the hysteria over the district motto absolutely smacks of McCarthyism where people are being labeled as socialists or Marxists because of a motto inspired by John Goodlad who had read John Dewey who in turn read the Communist Manifesto.

Nobody has labeled individuals as socialists or Marxists except for Goodlad being a socialist. As for the school board meeting, if you weren't there, don't speculate about what happened. There was no hysteria. Parents very calmly made comments to the board regarding several issues. One gentleman gave each board member a copy of the “5,000 Year Leap” without any “waving” in their faces. It was a very appropriate gesture.

I'm sure you couldn't help but think of McCarthyism. That seems to be the fall back for people who don't like someone shining a light into a dark place. You are aware that McCarthy was right aren't you? The new Texas state history standards make sure students are aware of the treasure trove of letters found years later that proved communist infiltration and that McCarthy was correct.

So you support what McCarthy did to all those innocent people in order to find the guilty few? Unbelievable. Your “light in a dark place” analogy is certainly a matter of perspective. Even the most tyrannical of dictators have claimed. Hilter, Stalin, Mao all made those claims too and supported similar tactics as McCarthy–the invocation of fear–to further their agendas.

It is obvious that lewisbarnavelt has no idea of real history. It just goes to show that one shouldn't trust what the MSM (main stream media) passes off as the truth. While the liberal media in the 1950's was crucifying McCarthy, saying that he was 'witch hunting,' and 'persecuting innocent people,' he was telling the truth. He got his information from the FBI. And where did the FBI get their information?

It came from a top secret FBI project that only Hoover and a those in on the project knew about. This info was so guarded that not even McCarthy knew the ultimate source of his info. The value of this project couldn't even be disclosed to defend McCarthy from the witch hunting MSM. It was called the Venona Project. This came out only in the mid 1990's when the FBI finally disclosed the information on Venona.

This is the story about the Venona Project. In the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI saw that the Soviet spy apparatus had a very sophisticated and advanced secret code they used to spy on America. It was so advanced that American cryptographers couldn't figure it out. They had thousands of coded messages, both from American spies sending messages to Moscow, and the replies they got from the Kremlin. So Hoover scoured America for the best and brightest cryptographers to decipher the codes. He came up with 6 people. They reported to him only and were under strict confidentiality oaths.

After a number of months working on the Soviet code, they began to see certain patterns emerging. Then a few words. Then the whole code was revealed. The messages confirmed that Americans working for the Soviet Union were indeed spying on America and were guilty of treason. Hoover then funneled those names to McCarthy who, not knowing the ultimate source of this information, told the American public. He was crucified for telling the truth. But the Venona Project was not the only confirmation of the truth of McCarthy's accusations. Oh, no.

You see, soon after the FBI made public some of their old files for public display, in the 1990s, THE KGB ITSELF OPENED UP THEIR OWN FILES ON AMERICAN ESPIONAGE. AND GUESS WHAT? THEIR OWN FILES CONFIRMED THAT EVERY NAME ON MCCARTHY'S LIST WAS ALSO IN THEIR OWN FILES AS A BONAFIDE ACTUAL SOVIET AGENT SPYING ON THE U.S. FOR THE SOVIET UNION.

So there are two testimonies of the truth here. 1- The Venona Project, and 2- The KGB's own files. They BOTH testify to the truth of McCarthy's accusations. He was so accurate that the powers that be couldn't take it. They pulled out all the stops to destroy him, come hell or high water. They HAD to shut him up or he could put an end of the secret combination right then and there. But the public was brainwashed, then and now, into believing that McCarthy was 'smearing' good people.

The truth is always despised by evil, for it shows their evil to the world. They have to move heaven and earth to keep the truth from coming out. Therefore, they will take great pains to buy up the news media. The secret combination has to control the MSM or they would be out of business in a month. It is so sad to see good people taken in by the MSM so easily.

Lewisbarnavalt, you will do yourself a great service by studying the issues and digging for the truth instead of speaking in ignorance. You are a great example of the gullible masses trusting in the powers that be and whatever the MSM shoves down your throat. I hope you can come to your senses and realize that all is NOT well in Zion, for you are being lulled to sleep by this horrible combination.

WAKE UP AMERICA!! The days of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joseph Smith that the Constitution would hang by a thread are here!! And it is hanging by a thread precisely because there is a vast secret combination that is deliberately trying to make it happen. A secret combination destroyed the nation of the Nephites (Helaman 2:13,14) and the Jaredites (Ether 8:22). The ancient prophets truly saw our day (Mormon 8:35), and tried to warn us.

Integrity involves the ability to see a new perspective that conflicts with one's own worldview, and instead of being so proud that one rejects the new perspective, one is be humble enough to admit that one doesn't know all the answers and is willing to pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. That pursuit of truth will open one up to persecution for the truth is always persecuted, or more accurately, the messenger of the truth is always persecuted. Witness what happened to the Savior and to Joseph Smith. But that doesn't stop the truth from being the truth.

Lewisbaravelt, what proof do you have that McCarthy was a witch hunter? The MSM? And where did they get their proof? Did it ever occur to you to ask that question? If you look at the old newspaper stories of the time, you'll see that they NEVER ONCE came up with any objective argument. They just relied on emotion and emotion ONLY to prove their point. They would say, for instance, that McCarthy was smearing 'good people' (boo-hoo, cry me a river) without showing the audience the REAL history of these so-called 'good people.' For if the MSM ever did, it would only prove McCarthy was right. Since they couldn't to that, they had to destroy him with insult, name-calling, innuendo, sarcasm, defamation of character, and every type of smear tactic they could get their hands on.

Can you deny that they called him a witch hunter, a wife beater, a drunkard, a philanderer, a liar, a cheat, a red-baiter, an anti-semite and a hundred other names? All you have to do is read the terrible things they said about him. And if you had the honesty to check it out further, you would find that many of the articles written against McCarthy by the New York Times and other publications came word for word from articles in the “Daily Worker,” the official Communist newspaper in the USA.

Next time talk about something you have knowledge of and stop defaming a good American. You make the phrase, “Ignorance is bliss,” come true, for you at least.

Pawnder, all I can say is WOW! Unbelievable! I've never heard such a misguided defense of McCarthy. I'm actually a historian/political scientist and make my living practicing my trade. While I do believe that were was fair amount of communist sympathy among some prominent Americans, McCarthy seemed to have no compunction of accusing his political opponents (all Democrats) of being a communist or communist sympathizer. A good example would be the Butler-Tydings political campaign of 1950 where he produced a fake photograph as evidence of a communist plot. Is this someone that you would view as a good American? McCarthy was a man who used his powerful position in the Senate to run the gamut on his Democrat opponents in an attempt to hand control of the government to a Republican super-majority and position himself as the most feared and powerful man in the Senate. He ruined a lot of innocent lives in the process. His downfall is similar to that of many politicians who are seriously questioned. After an embarrassing stint on the Edward Murrow show, he then proceeded to accuse him of being a Soviet collaborator involved in a spy ring. Was Murrow on the Verona list? No. In fact McCarthy accused and hauled before Senate hearings nearly 160 people, 108 on the Lee List, 57 from the State Department, and a claim to have a total of 205 names. How many of the those people were actually proven to be on the Verona list and KGB files? Nine. Only nine people! They are: Lauchlin Currie, Harold Glasser, Gerald Graze, Standley Graze, Many Jane Keeney, David Karr, Robert T. Miller, Franz Neumann, and William Remington. What of the other 150 or so people who were never substantiated? A handful were confirmed to be engaged in Soviet espionage according to the Gorsky Memo (the KGB files you refer to), but the vast majority were never substantiated. That is hardly a vindication of McCarthy and his witch trials. I do credit McCarthy with rooting out a few communists but scorn him for ruining the careers and reputations of dozens of people out of pure partisan politicking. In fact, many historians believe that McCarthy drove many of the real communists into hiding where they cultivated an even larger underground apparatus that came to fruition during the 1980's where Soviet espionage activity within the U.S reached its peak.

I'm quite aware of real history. In fact, probably much more than you. You discredit your own historical aptitude by parroting Ann Coulter's revisionist historical viewpoints in regard to McCarthyism. You also discredit proper historical decorum by intertwining LDS religious prophecy into your historical argument. That may work for those who view history exclusively through an LDS prism, but in reality it is a poor way to conduct historical research. I am not the one who lacks historical knowledge, it is you. Your argument is as far from a dispassionate view of history as you can get. In fact, you don't even try to be dispassionate at all, where I can at least admit McCarthy did have some positive effect and in turn became an unfair target of Democrat attacks one the table had turned (not that he didn't deserve it after what he did to innocent people). You, on the other hand, have nearly deified Joe McCarthy. If anyone is living in an ignorant and blissful world, it is you.

fhayekfan, You can hide in your closet that this is not your username on the DesNews that's fine, I hide as a tree so I guess fair is fair.

Goodlad is far from my idol. You tend to accuse me of things like that when I speak against your ideas. You have also accused me of being liberal and a socialist because I disagree with you. You do exactly what you accuse lewis of doing. I have also stated and shown on previous postings that my ideas of the world can change. Unlike you, I don't look at things through one set of eyes and try to find something that promotes my agenda (I don't have an agenda besides making sure others see your folly). You have never shown the ability to see anyone else's point of view. You find quotes and snippets of articles that you feel only support your ideas and ignore facts that go against your ideas. I recognize that Goodlad had socialistic attitudes, but I can also see that he was following a path that would help more children receive a good education than what they were currently getting from our nation. He went beyond socio-economic status, race, religion, etc. Many of your supporters though would have our education system be geared towards the wealthy White-Christians in our state. That scares me- even though I would personally benefit from that biased education system.
Since there are THOUSANDS of other people just as selfless as Goodlad why are you not promoting them over Goodlad. Instead you spout how evil Goodlad is without providing any alternatives. Typical of people who are upset that their world view is not the dominate one- just like the Tea Party wackos are doing.
While I personally did not see the value of the Investigations math program ASD used, why the attack on all of constructivism? Do you think education is all about right and wrong answers? Do you want kids to just learn to spit back out what the government wants them to? Sounds kind of like Communist China to me. Personally, I want my kids to learn to think for themselves and be able to come to their own understandings of things. Imagine if Joseph Smith hadn't thought for himself and come to his own “constructivist” understanding of religion. I for one am Happy he didn't jsut spit back out his local preacher's beliefs and not think for himself.
By the way, your view of McCarthy- that the ends justify the means- makes me happy you are not a legislator. How is what McCarthy did different than the political purges under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, etc? Creating a society of fear and paranoia is anti-Christian anyway. But if you support what McCarthy did, it gives me a better understanding of who you are as a person.

Sorry, but I'm “Oak” on the D News so that name is someone else. You can keep hiding though.

My world view changes as I encounter new views. There are a number of things I've wrestled with and changed on, but so far I haven't turned to the dark side of progressivism. :)

A few years ago I disagreed with constructivism but didn't know why. Tons of research proved it out for me. For one, the school district has ZERO studies that support the constructivist math programs they were using. Second, I have a study from a professor in Australia that shows he searched the literature to find a study that supports it and there are none. Constructivism as a curriculum is an utter failure as ASD has proven. It's a tool for every successful teacher to use as appropriate, but it's quite inappropriate to use as a full curriculum, just as only keeping a hammer in your toolbox and using it for sawing and drilling is inappropriate.

On Goodlad, he has far more than “socialist attitudes,” he IS a socialist and moral relativist. He openly admits to being a humanist. If you choose to put blinders on, I can't help it.

As for alternatives, why on earth do we need an alternative to Goodlad? We don't need anything but our good quality teachers, teaching our children without his influence. Involving the parents at the local level at a higher level would be the number one way to improve our children's education.

You're quite gifted at insulting people and putting words in my mouth, which gives me a better understanding of who you are as a person.

Oak, I fail to see how teachers have been teaching Goodlad to school kids. The vast majority of school teachers are using the state core curriculum, not some feel good motto promoted by the school board. Also, is there really anything wrong with being a little humanist? Christ was a humanist for heaven's sake. I think the world could use some more humanism instead of the cold-hearted, selfish, money driven society we live in today. Also Progressivism is a relative term. Our founding fathers were very progressive and even humanist to a large degree. In fact, I believe that they would have kept evolving their progressive ideologies. These were not static men. No matter how fondly you look upon the past, it was certainly not the utopia you like to imagine. Every era of history was fraught with problems which has slowly led us to where we are today. I was watching Glen Beck's Founder's Friday episode on Ben Franklin which provided a lot of great insight into Ben Franklin, but Becks flawed thinking made me cringe. He wants the U.S. to go back to the way it was in the 1700's, but he fails to see that can never happen. We have 300 million people, are 2% agrarian, and have no more free land for the taking. Our economy is entirely different and will never go back to the way it was because it can't go back to the way it was. In the late 1700's we had 12 million people, 90% agrarian and plenty of dirt cheap land or land freely given by the government. It can never be the same and never will be the same. It is a great thing to look at the past to help us solve our present problems, but to believe we can recreate the past as it once is pure folly and stupidity. I understand your desire to return to our roots but we need to be realistic. Our founding fathers would certainly look at the past to solve our problems but they would also be mindful of our present day in tailoring their solutions. Don't forget that our founding fathers, in addition to studying various forms of governments of ancient civilizations, were students of the contemporary philosophies of Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau. Like our Founding Fathers, let us also look to our own contemporary thinkers to help us solve our problems rather than long for a past that will never come back. I sometimes think that our Founding Fathers and Framers would be ashamed at how we have deified them to a point that we are no longer capable or willing to move forward and build upon what they have created. They viewed themselves and their work as a beginning not a beginning and an end.

As far as Goodlad being a socialist, I need to go back and read his writings. I never got the impression that he wanted the government to nationalize private business interests in favor of government ownership. His education ideas are socialist in nature but education needs to be supported by the government to some degree or else illiteracy rates would skyrocket as free access to education would be seriously impaired by an all private system for those who could afford it like we see in some 3rd world countries today. Some things need to be socialized, Oak . Schools, Police, Fire, even highways are just too expensive and difficult to operate under private ownership. They just don't provide a return for the investment and in America, private ownership means profitability. Can you imagine a profitable police department. That would be fun to see in operation. Our founding fathers were disgusted with Britain's privatization of a portion of their army with the hiring of the Hessian mercenaries, so even they believe some things needed to be socialized.

Lewis, Christ was not a humanist in the way Goodlad is. You are using the definition of one who is concerned about human welfare. Goodlad is part of the humanist manifesto which promotes the false theory that there is no God and man is supreme, and therefore we must have moral relativism and define knowledge and morals by what man decides. There is no absolute truth. That is Goodlad, and it's obviously far from Christ's doctrine.

Progressivism is a term that's been hijacked. The root word “progress” is a very relative term. Whose progress is it? Today the term is used by far left individuals that espouse very liberal and even Marxist philosophies because it's easy to have the public think they're all about “progress” when in reality they are seeking the overthrow of constitutional government in favor of socialism.

On Beck, he's certainly not saying we can return to “life as it was” in the 1700's, but a return to the great freedoms they had and the lack of a nanny state.

On education, the Founders were not in favor of free government run education. That was Karl Marx in his 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Jefferson wanted a public school system funded locally by the citizens, not by the federal government. He only wanted the schools to be free for 3 years so all students got the basics of reading and math. After that, he wanted the top 10% to get scholarshipped for another 3 years for 4-6 grade, and then again the top 10% of 6th graders to get scholarshipped for another 3 years. The rest of the students had to pay their own way if they wanted further education.

By the way, highways aren't too expensive to operate under private ownership. There is a company right now asking to build a bridge over Utah lake and just have a reasonable toll for those that want to use it rather than travel through Lehi. The West side of the lake has a population explosion in Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs. They are eager for a better commute and a private company is willing to provide it because they see the population growth projections as supporting it over the long term.

Police are not a socialized service. We have a natural right to protect our life and property. Because we have a natural right to do this, we can delegate and jointly hire someone to protect that right. It is the proper role of government to do this. However, hiring a doctor jointly to provide healthcare for all of us would be socialization because we do not have a natural right to health care (or education, etc…). Fire departments protect our property as well. The proper role of government is in protecting our rights and then letting us alone to be free to live in liberty.

Where does one begin to refute your blissful ignorance? There are so many avenues to follow.

I'll defer your statement on the fake photograph in the Tydings Hearings for the last.

First of all, you state “I'm actually a historian/political scientist and make my living practicing my trade.” Do you think I'm supposed to be impressed? Do you think that you're the only one who studies history??? You just fail to study true history. I notice that you love to regurgitate the party line of the MSM (main stream media) in your attacks on McCarthy's character. You call him a witch hunter. WONDERFUL! SO DID THE DAILY WORKER, THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. The New York Times and other newspapers would often quote, word for word, from the Daily Worker in their vitriol against J.M., one day later. In fact, it was the Daily Worker that coined the phrase, 'McCarythism,' which you are dutifully parroting. You're falling right into line. Don't think for yourself, just rely on the Daily Worker to think for you. Good boy. Sit! Roll over! Play dead!

Here's one example of your following the party line. You said, “McCarthy was a man who used his powerful position in the Senate to run the gamut on his Democrat opponents in an attempt to hand control of the government to a Republican super-majority and position himself as the most feared and powerful man in the Senate.” Where do you come up with that stuff? All I have to do is say, “Prove it!” Prove with creditable documents, where McCarthy wanted to do all that. In order to really prove that, one would have to be a mind reader. So prove it or apologize. If you can, I'll apologize. But I'm not backing down on that. You prove it or apologize, mister!!

Next. And this is good. Prepare to be roasted.
Let's start at one of your most important slipups. The Venona Project. BTW, it's the VeNona Project, not the VeRona project. But we'll let that slip as a typo. You said, “How many of the those people were actually proven to be on the Verona list (of 205 accused) and KGB files? Nine. Only nine people! They are: Lauchlin Currie, Harold Glasser, Gerald Graze, Standley Graze, Many Jane Keeney, David Karr, Robert T. Miller, Franz Neumann, and William Remington.”

Only nine people?? Gosh, that would make McCarthy a witch hunter, wouldn't it? Well, let's just look at some of the names on the actual list. Here goes:

Elizabeth Bentley. Gosh, she's on the Venona list, but you didn't mention her as one of the 9 commies. That's funny. She was a SELF CONFESSED COMMIE THAT TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE. But again, she's not on your list of nine, so I guess we'll have to pretend that she doesn't exist.
How about
Joseph Greenglass? He helped Julius and Ethel Rosenburg smuggle the atom bomb secrets to the USSR. He was Ethel's brother. BTW, Julius and Ethel are on the Venona list also, but they're not mentioned as one of the nine people you say are the only ones who were commies from the Venona list. So far, we have three more people, known communist spies, on the Venona list that you say aren't Are you starting to sweat under your collar, lewisbarnavelt? I'm not finished yet.
How about
Alger Hiss, Donald Hiss and Harry Hopkins, Mr. lewisbarnavelt? They are on the Venona list, all card carrying commies, and Alger went to prison for his espionage. Gosh, they aren't on your list of nine either!! Then how about
Harry Dexter White? Adviser to FDR, on the Venona list, but missing from your nine. He and Harry Hopkins helped the Soviets to smuggle atomic bomb secrets to Russia through the lend lease program according to Major Jordan, in the book, Major Jordan's Dairies. Read it and weep.
Then there's
Earl Browder. He was head of the Communist Party USA. On the list, but not on your list of 9.
Then there's
Harry Gold, sentenced to 30 years for his role in the Rosenburg spy ring. On the list, but not on yours.
Then there's
Sonia Steinman Gold, who, through Harry Dexter White's urging, was put in the Treasury Department Division of Monetary Research, where she smuggled secrets to the USSR. On the list, but not on yours.
Then there's
Jake Golos, a longtime senior official of the Communist Party of the United States of America involved in covert work and cooperation with Soviet intelligence agencies. He worked closely with Earl Browder in several spy rings. On the Venona list, but not on yours.
Then there's
Maurice Halperin, who worked in the Golos espionage ring. Worked in the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. On the list, but not on yours.
Then there's
Helen Lowry, named by Elizabeth Bently as one of her espionage contacts. Also mentioned as Elsa on the Soviet list of spies. On the Venona list, but not one of your nine.
Then there's
Lee Pressman, who admitted that he worked for the Ware group of Communist-led government employees aiding Soviet intelligence agents. Whittaker Chambers, commie spy turned state's evidence, but not mentioned on the Venona list, identified Lee Pressman as a spy. Pressman is On the Venona list, but not on yours.
Then there's
Jones Orin York, self confessed Soviet spy. In 1950 he confessed he passed on secrets to the Soviet Union since the mid 1930s. On Venona, not on your list.
Then there's
Milton Schwartz, whom Army Intelligence uncovered as a spy for the GRU, the Soviet Military Intelligence, during WWII.
Then there's
Joseph Katz, denounced by Elizabeth Bentley who worked with her as a Soviet spy.
Then there's
Philip Keeney whom the KGB and GRU identified as a soviet agent. His wife is on your list. His code name, in both the Venona and GRU list, was Bredan.
Then there's
Jack Soble, convicted Soviet spy, who went to prison for his espionage.
Then there's
Robert Soble, or Soblen, who was convicted as a spy and sentenced to life in prison. He fled the United States and sought asylum in England. When he was denied his last request for asylum, he killed himself.
Then there's
Morris and Lona Cohen who the Soviet Union in 1967 admitted were spies. Gosh, the list goes on and on.
Then there's
James Walter Miller who was recruited as a spy by Isaac Folkoff, Also on the Venona list. Folkoff's code name, according to the KGB, was Vague.

Lewisbarnavelt, I'm not going to go through the whole list, but I'm just placing these 25 additional names here to show the truth. You said that there were only NINE PEOPLE on the Venona list proven to be commie spies, but there's a lot more than that. I could add many more names, but what's the point? The Venona and KGB list are vindicated by other sources, such as those spies who split with the Party plus the KGB and GRU files. It all goes to prove the point that McCarthy was right. You say that the other names were never substantiated? Man, I just gave you a good list. Where do you do your “research?” Sorry, better luck next time.

Then you say, “You discredit your own historical aptitude by parroting Ann Coulter's revisionist historical viewpoints in regard to McCarthyism.” You are accusing Ann Coulter of being a revisionist? Sir, I have just proven that it is YOU who are the revisionist, willing to parrot the MSM party line and overlook real history. Then you said, “You also discredit proper historical decorum by intertwining LDS religious prophecy into your historical argument. That may work for those who view history exclusively through an LDS prism, but in reality it is a poor way to conduct historical research.”
Excuse me, but that part wasn't meant to be a part of historical research. I was departing from that and speaking as a person who can see what is happening around us, even though you can't.
I will not excuse my mentioning my LDS viewpoint. They did indeed see what is going on in our day, and I will not back down from it. If it doesn't pass your muster, too bad. I wasn't trying to impress you.

After having studied history for over forty years, I stopped being “dispassionate” because I have found that our civilization is about to be overrun by this great secret combination. So you go ahead with your dispassionate historical revisionism, you'll be just fine until the stuff hits the fan. At least I can study history and put two and two together. I pity your blissful ignorance. Anyone for a dispassionate ivory tower game of chess?

Now, there is one point on which you may be right. I don't know who doctored that photo in the Tydings hearings, but then neither do you. There is some evidence that it was Jonkel who did it, unbeknownst to McCarthy, but I'm not sure. Prove to me that McCarthy doctored the photo. He gave it to the hearings, but that doesn't prove he doctored them.

In the end, all that is proven is that you are parroting the communist line all the way. Keep it up. Before you get upset, I'm not accusing you of being a communist. I don't even know you. But it is unfortunate that you won't think for yourself. Don't worry. You can always get a job with the MSM. They love parrots.

Ken, you argue with an emotional similar to the person who I was originally responding to. First, let me address your attacks. I was originally accused of not knowing my history, so I was simply trying to say that I do know my history because I’m a historian. I’m not trying to impress anyone, least of all you because I didn’t even know you existed until reading your response.

Secondly, I did misspell Venona because I was formulating my response on a word processing program which didn’t have Venona in its dictionary and therefore auto-corrected it to say “Verona.” Sorry, I didn’t catch that mistake but it no way detracts from my historical background as you were so gleefully hoping.

Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with you does not belong to the MSM (Main Stream Media), nor do sources of information that do not subscribe to your personal views or interpretations of Joe McCarthy? I could provide all sorts of documentation to prove my point, but that would be fruitless because people like you would not keep an open mind about it, but instead say that it is some sort of communist plot concocted by the MSM, so why bother.

Fourthly, I never said that McCarthy doctored the photographed, I said the he “produced” a faked photograph as evidence. Whether or not McCarthy knew the photo was faked or not is unknown. In your hasty emotional reaction, you took a factual statement and then twisted it to mean something else in your rush to invalidate me, so why should I prove that McCarthy doctored a photograph when I never accused him of doing so in the first place?

You never really deny that Ann Coulter has engaged in revisionist history, but you then try to obfuscate the issue by including me into an MSM conspiracy to revise history. You also go one step further by coming as close as possible to accusing me of being a communist as you could and then back off your statement by saying that you are not accusing me of being a communist. I actually had to laugh because I was wondering if you were a reincarnated Joe McCarthy because that is the same tactic he would use to those who dared to question him. Ed Murrow is a great example of that.

A good historian never gives up in the attempt to be as dispassionate as possible. I never said that I was dispassionate, but I certainly make a better attempt than others on this forum. Your admission on this forum that you have given up trying to be dispassionate explains a lot in your post. You see, when you give up the attempt to look at all angles of an issue and throw your hat into the ring with a certain bias, you cease to be a credible historian because you are now looking for only facts and even unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence to support your views rather than looking at the facts to formulate your views. A real historian always maintains an open mind and as I stressed in my previous post, McCarthy did serve a beneficial purpose in rooting communists out of government. He did snare many in his nets, but he also caused collateral damage to many others in the process. Many people served in prison for refusing to participate as an informant during this time. That is why it is often called a witch hunt because during the Salem Witch Trials, many of those who were accused of being a witch would rather die than falsely accuse someone or lie about themselves. Is this something that our Founding Fathers intended for our country? Even many of McCarthy’s fellow Republicans realized what was happening and voted to censure him.

You certainly did not impress me with intertwining LDS religious philosophy and prophecy with your historical analysis. I’m LDS and I never do that kind of thing unless it is relevant to the actual historical context of the event being researched. It is not even evidential and certainly wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny as evidence that our government was overrun with communists because the LDS Church said that the Constitution would one day “hang by a thread.” Of course it will hang by a thread. Every government rises and falls and the LDS chruch could accurately say that one day every single government in the world past, present and future will hang by a thread. No, I’m not impressed with fortune telling.

I should have been more clear as to what I was saying about the Venona list. I was basically trying to say that of the 159 or so people McCarthy accused during his hearings only nine were on the Venona list. In other words, everyone on the Venona was engaged in espionage, some were discovered before McCarthy and some not uncovered by McCarthy. Of course Alger Hiss was on the list, but why would McCarthy accuse Hiss of being a communist spy when that was already dealt with before McCarthy’s hearings? Hiss was indicted in 1948, two years before McCarthy came onto the scene. The fact still remains that McCarthy accused a lot more people of being communists than what were substantiated. Many of those people lost their reputations and careers over false accusations.

The following is a link for a complete set of lists of those McCarthy accused during his hearings. When you match that list with the Venona list, you will find that only nine names match.

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html

I hope that this enlightens your mind if it is open to enlightenment, if not then go back to reading your Ann Coulter, watching Glenn Beck, and listening to Rush Limbaugh. By the way, I’m a registered Republican so just in case you think I’m some sort of Keith Olbermann watcher, you are sorely mistaken. I’m a historian that has brain of his own that doesn’t need others to do his thinking for him.

Oak, your problem is that you still can't see the forest for the trees. You wrap yourself up with a nice little cozy Communism and all things socialist are bad blanket to keep yourself feeling warm and fuzzy.
A total and complete Free market society cannot exist outside of a tiny remote island of less than 1,000 people. There must always be some socialism when people live near other people. How would you feel if a free market allowed a corporation like Walmart to create a monopoly over all groceries, clothes, personal technology, etc? How would this be different than the USSR having government control over all those things? Without some government regulation and control imagine what would be going on with BP in the Gulf right now. Imagine that if there was no government control over nuclear technology and it was privatized- Osama bin Laden could out bid any company here in the US to buy and use that technology. Who would make sure there was no rat poison in my children's tylenol if we didn't have government regulation and control over parts of our economy? How would there be any sense of national pride if we were truly a Free market economy? Everyone would be looking out for themselves and view their neighbors as competition and therefore their enemy.
Your fear of Socialism is irrationale. While I don't support the theory of Marxism, I at least see that there were many reasons for Marx to develop ideas like he did. The abuse of the common man during his time in Europe was frightening. The treatment of the working class, due to unfettered Capitalism, would naturally lead to an uprising- as has been shown throughout all of history and all around the world. Every time in World history the people were abused the wealthy, rebellion followed.

Oak, Ken and Pawn,
Another hypocrisy you have is that you want to return to the USA of our founding fathers and yet you want to disenfranchise citizens with different political views than yours. When did being a communist become illegal in this country? Where in our constitution does it not allow people to be socialist and/or Humanist? I thought the constitution and the founding fathers would uphold anyone can have any views they want and have the opportunity to participate in our government if they are elected. How can you defend someone like McCarthy who did perform a witch hunt? Finding spies, (whatever their political views) is different than what McCarthy did. As I said earlier, claiming that McCarthy's ends justified his means is a scary thought. Would you feel the same if Pelosi went on a witch hunt to find all Tea Party members in our government? Ruining people's careers and livelihood in his quest to find spies was wrong. To justify his actions is just scary. Also, do you really believe Christ or any LDS leader would defend what McCarthy did? Perhaps you once again believe that you are right and those people are wrong.
“In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Pastor Martin Niemoller, Dachau, 1944
That is what McCarthyism was leading to. That is what you people are supporting by supporting McCarthy. Just because someone wants to see changes made in our country, as progressivists or humanists or socialists, doesn't make them unAmerican as McCarthy would have you believe. To want to create change in our country is what being American is.

Pine,
You said, “Another hypocrisy you have is that you want to return to the USA of our founding fathers and yet you want to disenfranchise citizens with different political views than yours.” Please tell me where I said in my article, that people who disagree with me should be disenfranchised? You can't, can you? I never said that and you know it. That makes you a liar. But even liars have freedom of expression. They just show off their blissful ignorance every time they open their mouths and you're no exception. Does that sound like I'm trying to disenfranchise you? Of course not. But you're still a liar.

Ken proved in his article that McCarthy routed out Soviet spies in our government. Sorry, but that's not witch hunting. You said, “Finding spies, (whatever their political views) is different than what McCarthy did.” But you are proven to be wrong, through Ken's article. Normal people can see that the people McCarthy named were spies, because the Venona papers and the KGB vaults themselves proved it. The names on McCarthy's list matched those on the Venona papers and the KGB files, as was pointed out in Ken's article, but you conveniently dance around that. Why is it that liberals always side step the issues, the proof, the evidence, as was shown in Ken's article, and then go right back to name calling (e.g., McCarthy is witch hunting)? Every name on that list was shown to be a Soviet SPY, which is what you can see for yourself, if you'll just read the article. For example,
“Lee Pressman, who ADMITTED that he worked for the Ware group of Communist-led government employees aiding Soviet intelligence agents…
“Elizabeth Bentley. She was a SELF CONFESSED COMMIE THAT TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE.
“Joseph Greenglass? He helped Julius and Ethel Rosenburg smuggle the atom bomb secrets to the USSR. He was Ethel's brother. BTW, Julius and Ethel are on the Venona list also.
(For your information, Julius and Ethel Rosenburg were executed for being Soviet SPIES, not for their communist beliefs.)

The list can go on. The proof is that these people were PROVEN to be spies by 1- McCarthy's list, 2-The Venona papers, 3-The official KGB list, 4-Former Communist SPIES who turned state's evidence, and last but not least, 5-THROUGH THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS in many cases. Only a liberal can take the article that Ken wrote and say, “Those people were persecuted for their beliefs.” But someone with superior intelligence, like a half-wit, will read it and say, “They were prosecuted for their espionage.” That whole article manifests the truth about the SOVIET SPIES that were in our midst, and McCarthy routed them out. He should have been given a medal for his meritorious work.

I can see in you the same fallacious arguments given by lewisbarnevelt. Your arguments are founded in the MSM (main stream media) party line. But guess where the MSM got their swill about McCarthy? They got it from the Daily Worker, the official communist party newspaper in America. For instance, you use the label, “McCarthyism.” Don't worry, many people in America are also fooled by that.

Well, guess what? The Daily Worker INVENTED the term 'McCarthyism!!” So when you use the same term, you just keep showing off your ignorance and willingness to swallow the MSM swill. Pine, PEOPLE HAVE TO WAKE UP AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES. But you, following the party line, go right ahead in your fantasy world. I admit it's much easier to imagine yourself in la-la land rather than break a sweat and dig for the truth. Most of the time, the truth is hard to discover because the MSM doesn't want us to find it out. Don't believe me? Here is just one quotation from literally hundreds that I have, which I got from hard work.

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” (Richard Salent, former president, CBS News)

“Golly gee, Mister Dillon, hit kinda sounds like them there newspaper people air jus' tryin' ta keep us in igerance.” If you would open your eyes just a little, Pine, you would see the truth all around you. But it seems like you're just not that interested. So go ahead and bury your head in the sand, pretend that the MSM is your daily bread. Here's another quotation:

“We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.” (Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS political news)

Like I said, I could give you literally hundreds of these quotations because I've studied it a long time. But I'll be merciful to you and tell you to get the book, “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays, and see for yourself. Who was Edward Bernays? Well, he was the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the Chief Adviser to William (Bill) Paley, CEO of CBS for over forty years. They made CBS Evening News the major news organization of its day. When Bernays died, the New York Times ran an obit on Bernays and called him “The Father of Public Relations.” Go and find out what the 'father of public relations' thought about “manipulating the masses.”

After that, if you can still swallow the swill of the MSM, you rightly deserve to be called an ostrich. (head in the sand, etc. Get it?) But even ostriches have freedom of expression. But in your case, it would be better to get a good book like “Propaganda,” go into a quiet corner, read it and be quiet until you can make a cogent comment. It really is for your good. But that's just a suggestion, of course. I don't want to “disenfranchise” you.

Ken, your attack on Main Stream Media is bizarre. What exactly are you talking about? It sounds as if you have some secret books hidden away that Main Stream America has no access to and so they live in ignorance.
Not being well versed on McCarthy, I went up to the UofU yesterday and researched the Cold War and McCarthy. I got to tell you that I could not find any information that backs up your claims about everyone McCarthy ever accused was a spy confirmed by the USSR. In fact, the books and articles I found actually support more what LewisB posted up here. Even McCarthy's contemporaries turned against him once they realized he was acting like Robespierre during his Reign of Terror. In only a few hours of research I found many sources that show McCarthy was one of the most damaging figures to our country ever. He bred distrust and fear everywhere. People lost faith in our government- not because there were a few communists in it but because of how invasive it got into people's lives.
Ken if indeed you have studied McCarthy for 40 years, you have definitely not found mainstream (widely circulated and scholarly accepted) sources to back your arguments up. You do not come across as a scholar or expert on this subject at all. You just rant and rave against others ideas, which are backed up by many sources, and emotionally defend your ideas with grand sweeping statements.
Also, your personal attacks on Pine and Lewis (calling them liars and demanding apologies for things not even directed at you) remind me of some of the McCarthy hearing transcripts I read yesterday. Are you trying to emulate that man? because your postings seem to.

DMS
Read “Propaganda” by Edward Bernays, the 'Father of Public Relations,” then go to the Congressional Record and go to February 9, 1917, Vol. 54, pp. 2947-2948. Look at what Representative Oscar Calloway said about the newspapers of his day. Then read the following:

“A . . . report issued by Congress in 1974 revealed that Chase Manhattan's stake in CBS [was] 14.1 percent, and that it had made major inroads toward control of NBC by purchasing 4.5 percent of RCA Corporation, the parent of NBC. The same report disclosed that Chase held stocks in twenty-eight broadcasting firms. The report, entitled “Disclosure of Corporate Ownership,” . . . was published by the Senate subcommittee on intergovernmental relations . . . yet another study revealed that Chase had gained control of 6.7 percent of ABC’s stock as
well.” (Gary H. Kah, Enroute to Global Occupation, Huntington House Publishers, 1992, p. 56)

You said, “Ken if indeed you have studied McCarthy for 40 years, you have definitely not found mainstream (widely circulated and scholarly accepted) sources to back your arguments up.” DUH!!!! Just think about what you said. OF COURSE I haven't found any MSM sources to back up my arguments because those same MSM sources that you say I need to convince you ARE THE SAME ONES WHO ARE TRYING TO KEEP YOU FROM DISCOVERING THE TRUTH!!!!! DUH!!!! Why would they be so stupid as to let the public see their deceptions???

The truth is hard to discover because the devil is always trying to hide the truth. Trying to tell the truth is like swimming upstream against a powerful current. It is hard, but the truth is always worth pursuing. It's like the days of Joseph Smith. All of the main stream religions of his day kept telling everyone the same lie: That God doesn't speak to man on Earth anymore, all we have is the Bible. “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible and there cannot be any more Bible.” (2Ne. 29:3) They denied that there could be any more revelation from God. ALL THE MAIN STREAM RELIGIONS SAID THE SAME THING. Then along came a 14 year old farmer's boy who said he received a revelation from God, and the whole main stream religions of his day united to persecute him. They tried to shut him up, and turn the word against him. But he told the truth. So he had to swim against the powerful stream of lies that the world threw at him, and ultimately paid with his life for the truth. Can't anyone see the parallel here? Why is everyone so dense? The devil has always had the majority of the world on his side. “…for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there are that go in thereat.” (Matt. 7:13) And just how do you think that so many go into that gate? Did it never occur to you that all of that vast majority of mankind that enters the gate of destruction do so by being LIED TO? One of Satan's names is “the father of all lies.” And yet with all this testimony, you people still can't see the truth. Once, Khruschev said to Ezra Taft Benson, “You Americans are so gullible…” Even though he was a master liar himself, on that one point he hit the nail on the head. Americans like yourself, lewisbarevelt and Pine and the majority of mankind are sooooooooooooooooooo gullible. You WILL NOT search for the truth because it's just so easy to believe the MSM and let them lead you around by the nose. In closing, here's another quotation:

“. . . in America, we have achieved the Orwellian prediction – enslaved, the people have been
programmed to love their bondage and are left to clutch only miragelike images of freedom, its fables and fictions. The new slaves are linked together by vast electronic chains of television that imprison not their bodies but their minds. Their desires are programmed, their tastes
manipulated, their values set for them . . .” (Gerry Spence, “From Freedom to Slavery,” St. Martin's Press, 1993, from bookjacket cover)

All I can say is that you people need to wake up and see the world for what it really is. Don't let the MSM decide what you will think. All of this evidence is enough to convince any normal minded person of the truth. Whether you decide to stand for truth is up to you. You will have to answer before God for that.

Ken, Pawnder, whoever you are, how can I respond to a such a litany of misstatements, twisted logic, and your slanderous, bullying attacks? You claim that you have read history for forty years, but it has become apparent that you didn't learn much in that forty years, including how to read. In what you consider a “roast” of my argument, you have in effect “roasted” yourself. I suppose I will have to hold your hand and guide you through your missteps, because you are too arrogant and condescending to discover them on your own, and I hope that others reading our exchange will finally see you for what you really are. I'm assuming that Ken and Pawnder are the same person and when I refer to “you” I'm referring to the “Ken” and “Pawnder” screen names.

Your first critical error is that you set your argument up in such a way that anyone who refutes your argument whether they have evidence or not, is in league with the MSM. Not only that, you take it a step further and insist that anyone that criticizes McCarthy, and by default your defense of McCarthy, is either a communist sympathizer or a communist in the flesh. For example, you say, “You rely on the Daily Worker to think for you.” For those reading and don't know, the “DAILY WORKER” was “THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA.” You then go on to say, “Here's one example of your following the party line.” Again, you accuse me of following the communist party line and therefore a communist just because I criticized Sen. McCarthy's conduct. Does that make Harry Truman and Eisenhower communists because they criticized McCarthy as well? And of course my favorite quote, “In the end, all that is proven is that you are parroting the communist line all the way. Keep it up. Before you get upset, I'm not accusing you of being a communist.” That is exactly what you have been doing throughout your diatribe. You can't hurl rocks at someone and then just say, kidding. Let us call a spade a spade and not mince words. You think I'm a communist because I criticized the conduct of Sen. McCarthy. That is exactly the same type of McCarthyesque tactic that Sen. McCarthy used. No wonder you think he is such a great American. Then you go on to attack Pine (another forum poster) in the same manner and take it a step further by accusing the MSM (mainstream media or should I say, liberal media) of being a part of the Communist Party. For example, “But guess where the MSM got their swill about McCarthy? They got it from the Daily Worker, the official communist party newspaper in America.”

Now hang on because you are going to be royally disenfranchised for your less than cogent argument. Let the real roast begin. There are two types of historians, one credible and one that is not credible. The credible historian keeps an open mind, looks at the facts and formulates analysis around those facts. The less credible historian formulates his opinion and then looks for only those facts that corroborate that opinion, disregarding everything else, in your case, it is the product of the MSM, a communist conspiratorial group of media outlets. A real historian never gives up attempting to be as dispassionate as possible in historical analysis. A real historian tries to remain objective, not subjective. You admitted yourself that you don't even try to be dispassionate or objective, “After having studied history for over forty years, I stopped being 'dispassionate' because I found that our civilization is about to be overrun by this great secret combination.” In other words you seek out only those things that support your worldview. That is also what Oak Norton does in his historical analysis. I'm sorry, but the world is not a black and white place, but filled with many shades of grey.

Your biggest faux pas was not reading my argumentation with objectivity, but instead you let yourself get emotional. First of all I never said that the Venona list was inaccurate. I never even insinuated that. In fact, I even credited McCarthy for exposing several communists, nine in total, that could be cross-referenced to the Venona list. Like Oak Norton, you take what someone says, twist completely around, and then attack it. My argumentation was never about the veracity of the Venona list but the accuracy of McCarthy's lists. McCarthy claimed to have a piece of paper that listed 205 names of communist spies or sympathizers. That list was the not the Venona list. In fact, many historians believe that nothing was written on that piece of paper since McCarthy came up with a myriad of excuses why he couldn’t show his list such as leaving it in his luggage or that someone stole if from his pocket. Of the 159 names that McCarthy ultimately listed, only nine of those names were cross-referenced with the Venona list by the time the decryption project was ended in 1980. Here is a website listing the names of those McCarthy accused and this list is also cross-referenced with the Venona list:

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html

You then go proceed to waste your time by listing 25 people who were on the Venona list as if to prove to me that the list is true. Again, I never doubted the accuracy of the Venona list, just the McCarthy list, but in your fruitless efforts to list these 25 names, you exposed your lack of historical research by attributing those names to McCarthy's list and therefore McCarthy himself, making it appear that McCarthy exposed people even before McCarthy was a Senator or before he had his hearings between 1950 and 1952. None of the 25 names you mention were on McCarthy's list because they were exposed either through confessions or other counter-espionage activity before McCarthy had his hearings in most instances. For instance, Elizabeth Bentley confessed in 1945. Why would should be on McCarthy's lists (and she is not). Again, she is on the Venona list, not McCarthy's list. The same for “David” Greenglass, you said Joseph Greenglass, one of your “most important slipups” but “we'll that slip as a typo.” (By the way, I'm quite sorry for my typo of “Venona.” My word processor automatically changed Venona to “Verona.” I should have been more careful in proofreading, not because of a simple mistake, but because you would try to use it to “discredit” my argument, which you did attempt to do. Alger Hiss was indicted before McCarthy as was the Rosenbergs (you spelled it Rosenburg. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!). Need I go on? You also mention that the KGB's “OWN FILES CONFIRMED THAT EVER NAME ON MCCARTHY'S LIST WAS ALSO IN THEIR OWN FILES AS A BONAFIDE ACTUAL SOVIET AGENT SPYING ON THE U.S. FOR THE SOVIET UNION.” I say prove it. I want you to print all the names from John Earl Hayne's list of those McCarthy accused and prove to me every single name was a bonafide Soviet Agent. Prove it or apologize, but don't apologize to me, but all those people who were never proven to be spies. Your reckless and libelous accusations disgust me and are no better than McCarthy himself. Of course John Haynes did the work for you as he has already listed the nine who are on the Venona List and several other names that were in KGB files or confessions, but the rest of the names (the majority) have never been substantiated.

I need to address another instance of where you take something I said, twist it around, and then attack it. I never said that McCarthy doctored a photographed. I said he “produced a faked photograph”, not manufactured a fake photograph. Just like in court where you produce evidence doesn't mean that you counterfeited the evidence. In your glee to discredit my argument you tripped over yourself. Of course I don't believe that McCarthy had the technical ability to doctor a photograph. The question is whether or not he knew it was fake, but nevertheless it is a discrediting factor.

Again, like Oak Norton you take something someone says, twist around, and then attack it. In this case, instead of dealing with the argument at hand, Sen. McCarthy's conduct in his accusations of 159 communist spies or sympathizers, you turn the entire crux of your argument into an idictment of both Pine and me as to whether or not we even believe there were communists in the government, accuse us of being communists ourselves, and then go on to indict the entire mainstream media as being part of communist plot to take of over the U.S. government. Mr. McCarthy, I mean Pawnder/Ken, we have already had two red scares in this country, do we need another? I believe it is Obama's election that is fueling this near hysteria that has become so apparent in your argumentation. I also believe that the partisan right-wing and left-wing talk shows of the MSM (that includes Fox) has further polarized the nation. It used to be the Congress that was polarized, now it is the country with the wacky left and the wacky right at the center of it all.

I'm not sure what kind of America you want to live in, but in order to live in free society, you need to take both the good and the bad. In order to suppress the bad, you often choke what is so good about America. Is it illegal to belong to the Communist Party? No. Has it ever been illegal to belong to the Communist Party? No. Yet, here we have a sitting U.S. Senator asking the question, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of a the “Communist Party?” A failure to answer that question means that you are in contempt of Congress and then sentenced to prison. Is that the type of government you want? When Major Irving Peress plead the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about his political affiliations, McCarthy demanded that Peress be court-martialed. Is that the type of America you want? An America where a sitting Senator acts as commander-in-chief and then steps on the U.S. Constitution by disregarding an American's rights under the Fifth Amendment? McCarthy is a great American as you claim? When General Zwicker refused to court-martial Peress and accepted his resignation instead, he was verbally attacked by McCarthy and told that he was “unfit to wear that uniform.” Is McCarthy still your hero, Pawnder/Ken? When McCarthy ran out of Democrat targets he turned his attention to President Eisenhower for his failure to get the release of American pilots shot down over Korea. McCarthy used to call the FDR-Truman era “Twenty years of Treason” but then changed it to “Twenty-one years of Treason” to include Eisenhower.

McCarthy disgusted the majority of the American people when a televised hearing showed his true colors to the American people when Army lawyer Joe Welch asked McCarthy hatchet man (and believed homosexual) Roy Cohn, to produce the list of 130 names McCarthy said he had of communists currently employed in defense plants. In typical McCarthy fashion, he obfuscates and then accused an employee of Welch's of being a communist because he had worked for the Lawyers Guild, the legal representative firm of the organized Communist party, which doesn't mean you are a communist. That is like saying that a lawyer who represents a serial killer is sympathetic to serial killers and therefore a possible serial killer. McCarthy then interrupts and seeks to destroy the character of this young lawyer. The famous line of Welch that destroyed McCarthy and led to a censure by his own party were: “Let us not assassinate this young lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

That is what I say to you and Oak (he liked your comment to me), “do you have no sense of decency” in describing McCarthy as a Great American? Do great American's throw innocent people under the bus in order to eject the flotsam that might be hiding. Do great Americans pick and choose political parties for Americans? Do they trample on the executive branch or the bill of rights? What started as political opportunity for a junior Senator to make a name for himself turned in to a vicious, right-trampling crusade complete with informant culture and blacklists. No matter how noble the reasons for this crusade, Sen. McCarthy got completely out of control and no longer represented the values of our American Republic that so many on this website claim to uphold. If anyone pushed our Constitution to a point where it was close to “hanging by a thread” it was Sen. McCarthy.

Ken, Pawnder, whoever you are, how can I respond to a such a litany of misstatements, twisted logic, and your slanderous, bullying attacks? You claim that you have read history for forty years, but it has become apparent that you didn't learn much in that forty years, including how to read. In what you consider a “roast” of my argument, you have in effect “roasted” yourself. I suppose I will have to hold your hand and guide you through your missteps, because you are too arrogant and condescending to discover them on your own, and I hope that others reading our exchange will finally see you for what you really are. I'm assuming that Ken and Pawnder are the same person and when I refer to “you” I'm referring to the “Ken” and “Pawnder” screen names.

Your first critical error is that you set your argument up in such a way that anyone who refutes your argument whether they have evidence or not, is in league with the MSM. Not only that, you take it a step further and insist that anyone that criticizes McCarthy, and by default your defense of McCarthy, is either a communist sympathizer or a communist in the flesh. For example, you say, “You rely on the Daily Worker to think for you.” For those reading and don't know, the “DAILY WORKER” was “THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA.” You then go on to say, “Here's one example of your following the party line.” Again, you accuse me of following the communist party line and therefore a communist just because I criticized Sen. McCarthy's conduct. Does that make Harry Truman and Eisenhower communists because they criticized McCarthy as well? And of course my favorite quote, “In the end, all that is proven is that you are parroting the communist line all the way. Keep it up. Before you get upset, I'm not accusing you of being a communist.” That is exactly what you have been doing throughout your diatribe. You can't hurl rocks at someone and then just say, kidding. Let us call a spade a spade and not mince words. You think I'm a communist because I criticized the conduct of Sen. McCarthy. That is exactly the same type of McCarthyesque tactic that Sen. McCarthy used. No wonder you think he is such a great American. Then you go on to attack Pine (another forum poster) in the same manner and take it a step further by accusing the MSM (mainstream media or should I say, liberal media) of being a part of the Communist Party. For example, “But guess where the MSM got their swill about McCarthy? They got it from the Daily Worker, the official communist party newspaper in America.”

Now hang on because you are going to be royally disenfranchised for your less than cogent argument. Let the real roast begin. There are two types of historians, one credible and one that is not credible. The credible historian keeps an open mind, looks at the facts and formulates analysis around those facts. The less credible historian formulates his opinion and then looks for only those facts that corroborate that opinion, disregarding everything else, in your case, it is the product of the MSM, a communist conspiratorial group of media outlets. A real historian never gives up attempting to be as dispassionate as possible in historical analysis. A real historian tries to remain objective, not subjective. You admitted yourself that you don't even try to be dispassionate or objective, “After having studied history for over forty years, I stopped being 'dispassionate' because I found that our civilization is about to be overrun by this great secret combination.” In other words you seek out only those things that support your worldview. That is also what Oak Norton does in his historical analysis. I'm sorry, but the world is not a black and white place, but filled with many shades of grey.

Your biggest faux pas was not reading my argumentation with objectivity, but instead you let yourself get emotional. First of all I never said that the Venona list was inaccurate. I never even insinuated that. In fact, I even credited McCarthy for exposing several communists, nine in total, that could be cross-referenced to the Venona list. Like Oak Norton, you take what someone says, twist completely around, and then attack it. My argumentation was never about the veracity of the Venona list but the accuracy of McCarthy's lists. McCarthy claimed to have a piece of paper that listed 205 names of communist spies or sympathizers. That list was the not the Venona list. In fact, many historians believe that nothing was written on that piece of paper since McCarthy came up with a myriad of excuses why he couldn’t show his list such as leaving it in his luggage or that someone stole if from his pocket. Of the 159 names that McCarthy ultimately listed, only nine of those names were cross-referenced with the Venona list by the time the decryption project was ended in 1980. Here is a website listing the names of those McCarthy accused and this list is also cross-referenced with the Venona list:

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html

You then go proceed to waste your time by listing 25 people who were on the Venona list as if to prove to me that the list is true. Again, I never doubted the accuracy of the Venona list, just the McCarthy list, but in your fruitless efforts to list these 25 names, you exposed your lack of historical research by attributing those names to McCarthy's list and therefore McCarthy himself, making it appear that McCarthy exposed people even before McCarthy was a Senator or before he had his hearings between 1950 and 1952. None of the 25 names you mention were on McCarthy's list because they were exposed either through confessions or other counter-espionage activity before McCarthy had his hearings in most instances. For instance, Elizabeth Bentley confessed in 1945. Why would should be on McCarthy's lists (and she is not). Again, she is on the Venona list, not McCarthy's list. The same for “David” Greenglass, you said Joseph Greenglass, one of your “most important slipups” but “we'll that slip as a typo.” (By the way, I'm quite sorry for my typo of “Venona.” My word processor automatically changed Venona to “Verona.” I should have been more careful in proofreading, not because of a simple mistake, but because you would try to use it to “discredit” my argument, which you did attempt to do. Alger Hiss was indicted before McCarthy as was the Rosenbergs (you spelled it Rosenburg. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!). Need I go on? You also mention that the KGB's “OWN FILES CONFIRMED THAT EVER NAME ON MCCARTHY'S LIST WAS ALSO IN THEIR OWN FILES AS A BONAFIDE ACTUAL SOVIET AGENT SPYING ON THE U.S. FOR THE SOVIET UNION.” I say prove it. I want you to print all the names from John Earl Hayne's list of those McCarthy accused and prove to me every single name was a bonafide Soviet Agent. Prove it or apologize, but don't apologize to me, but all those people who were never proven to be spies. Your reckless and libelous accusations disgust me and are no better than McCarthy himself. Of course John Haynes did the work for you as he has already listed the nine who are on the Venona List and several other names that were in KGB files or confessions, but the rest of the names (the majority) have never been substantiated.

I need to address another instance of where you take something I said, twist it around, and then attack it. I never said that McCarthy doctored a photographed. I said he “produced a faked photograph”, not manufactured a fake photograph. Just like in court where you produce evidence doesn't mean that you counterfeited the evidence. In your glee to discredit my argument you tripped over yourself. Of course I don't believe that McCarthy had the technical ability to doctor a photograph. The question is whether or not he knew it was fake, but nevertheless it is a discrediting factor.

Again, like Oak Norton you take something someone says, twist around, and then attack it. In this case, instead of dealing with the argument at hand, Sen. McCarthy's conduct in his accusations of 159 communist spies or sympathizers, you turn the entire crux of your argument into an idictment of both Pine and me as to whether or not we even believe there were communists in the government, accuse us of being communists ourselves, and then go on to indict the entire mainstream media as being part of communist plot to take of over the U.S. government. Mr. McCarthy, I mean Pawnder/Ken, we have already had two red scares in this country, do we need another? I believe it is Obama's election that is fueling this near hysteria that has become so apparent in your argumentation. I also believe that the partisan right-wing and left-wing talk shows of the MSM (that includes Fox) has further polarized the nation. It used to be the Congress that was polarized, now it is the country with the wacky left and the wacky right at the center of it all.

I'm not sure what kind of America you want to live in, but in order to live in free society, you need to take both the good and the bad. In order to suppress the bad, you often choke what is so good about America. Is it illegal to belong to the Communist Party? No. Has it ever been illegal to belong to the Communist Party? No. Yet, here we have a sitting U.S. Senator asking the question, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of a the “Communist Party?” A failure to answer that question means that you are in contempt of Congress and then sentenced to prison. Is that the type of government you want? When Major Irving Peress plead the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about his political affiliations, McCarthy demanded that Peress be court-martialed. Is that the type of America you want? An America where a sitting Senator acts as commander-in-chief and then steps on the U.S. Constitution by disregarding an American's rights under the Fifth Amendment? McCarthy is a great American as you claim? When General Zwicker refused to court-martial Peress and accepted his resignation instead, he was verbally attacked by McCarthy and told that he was “unfit to wear that uniform.” Is McCarthy still your hero, Pawnder/Ken? When McCarthy ran out of Democrat targets he turned his attention to President Eisenhower for his failure to get the release of American pilots shot down over Korea. McCarthy used to call the FDR-Truman era “Twenty years of Treason” but then changed it to “Twenty-one years of Treason” to include Eisenhower.

McCarthy disgusted the majority of the American people when a televised hearing showed his true colors to the American people when Army lawyer Joe Welch asked McCarthy hatchet man (and believed homosexual) Roy Cohn, to produce the list of 130 names McCarthy said he had of communists currently employed in defense plants. In typical McCarthy fashion, he obfuscates and then accused an employee of Welch's of being a communist because he had worked for the Lawyers Guild, the legal representative firm of the organized Communist party, which doesn't mean you are a communist. That is like saying that a lawyer who represents a serial killer is sympathetic to serial killers and therefore a possible serial killer. McCarthy then interrupts and seeks to destroy the character of this young lawyer. The famous line of Welch that destroyed McCarthy and led to a censure by his own party were: “Let us not assassinate this young lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

That is what I say to you and Oak (he liked your comment to me), “do you have no sense of decency” in describing McCarthy as a Great American? Do great American's throw innocent people under the bus in order to eject the flotsam that might be hiding. Do great Americans pick and choose political parties for Americans? Do they trample on the executive branch or the bill of rights? What started as political opportunity for a junior Senator to make a name for himself turned in to a vicious, right-trampling crusade complete with informant culture and blacklists. No matter how noble the reasons for this crusade, Sen. McCarthy got completely out of control and no longer represented the values of our American Republic that so many on this website claim to uphold. If anyone pushed our Constitution to a point where it was close to “hanging by a thread” it was Sen. McCarthy.

Lewisbaranvelt,
There's nothing left to say. You keep hanging yourself with every lie. I could really do you in, but you're not worth it.

Lewis said: “Again, like Oak Norton you take something someone says, twist around, and then attack it.” I assume you're referring to Goodlad. Prove that I've twisted his words. They're his own. He's an admitted socialist, humanist, atheist, and that comes with a lot of baggage. So prove I've twisted something he's said instead of tossing out accusations.

Oak, your entire movement of attacking the original Alpine School District motto: “Enculturating the young into a social and political democracy” is a great example. Not once have you proven that teachers are actually teaching students to be socialists based on the motto, but you sure do make it sound like they are. I have no problem with people raising an eyebrow and asking questions, but hopefully those who are asking questions are open to the answers they receive. I applaud you for asking those questions and taking an active role in the community, but you aren't accepting of their answers not matter how truthful they may be. You want to hear what you want to hear and won't rest until you get what you are after. Even though you know the motto has been quite innocuous in practice, you still won't accept Alpine School Districts response as to their interpretation of Goodlad's quote. That is what is truly important isn't it? How ASD is using the quote is, by far, more important than the quote itself or the Goodlad's biography where you make him out to be worse than Lenin. Dr. Gary Daynes of BYU gave a good lecture in 2005 on the issue. Daynes described social democracy as “a set of conditions that result when unrelated people put themselves in constant contact for reasons of mutual benefit. He differentiated political democracy as unrelated people who come together to make decisions about situations, which are in the intersections of their lives. He argued that social democracies are like neighborhoods, while political democracies are like networks of neighborhoods, and noted that these definitions also apply nicely to schools.” This may be different than what Goodlad believes and what you believe, but have you ever considered that what Daynes is saying is what ASD believes it to mean. Isn't what ASD believes more important than your interpretation. Your interpretation isn't guiding ASD, ASD's interpretation is guiding ASD.

The problem is that you cannot look past Goodlad himself and believe that ASD and BYU officials subscribe to your definition “social democracy” based on Goodlad's history. Perhaps Goodlad was pushing a socialist agenda, but that doesn't mean that ASD and BYU are doing so. Why can't they interpret Goodlad how they choose to interpret him rather than subscribe to your interpretation of him? Like I said before, you haven't given any proof that Goodlad's socialism is being taught to our students in ASD. Like Ken Bowers, you can't concede some points, no matter what the facts on the ground are saying. You come off as always right and never wrong. The world is a completely black and white place in your mind and there are no shades of grey whatsoever. You believe that if you promote any quotes by John Goodlad you are promoting socialism. Wasn't it your group that spouted a Karl Marx quote about Democracy? Does that now make your group socialist because it is reading Karl Marx and then quoting him? No. I don't believe that, but it is the same type of logic or lack thereof, that you and your lackeys have been engaging in. Perhaps ASD will change its motto over this entire issue. Who really cares? Mottos mean a lot more to those who create them than to teachers or students. Before the motto became an issue, I bet you would have a hard time finding teachers who even knew what the motto was in ASD. Now, they probably all know what it is, but I highly doubt they use it in the classroom because they have their respective curriculum to teach. You have made your point, Oak, and it is time to free the bee that has been flying around in your bonnet and move on.

You might be surprised to learn that the teachers certainly know the motto, which was created by John Goodlad. In fact, Goodlad's words are so significant to the ASD that the teachers are required to RECITE them at faculty meetings. It is not just logic or opinions that these parents and citizens use in determining what Goodlad's beliefs and desires are. They have done a great deal of study and research to determine truth based upon Goodlad's own words and the evidence that is present in the motto, the curriculum, and the teacher training practices that are embraced here. You might try doing some yourself so that your contrary views are based upon some facts.

That is funny, because the teacher friends that I talked to have never had to recite the motto at faculty meetings and went on to tell me that they didn't even know what the district motto was until Oak brought it to the forefront. Just because your school recites the motto, doesn't mean they all do as you insinuate, if you really are a teacher or just someone pretending to be. Regardless, if teachers are getting training on the meaning of the ASD motto, are they being taught to teach the kids to turn America into a pure democracy and therefore a socialist state as Oak contends? You mention basing views on “facts” but you have failed to provide any other than just parrot what Oak and his minions are saying. Why don't you share with us on this forum what exactly ASD told you to do with their motto during your teacher training. Please enlighten us. Oak contends that ASD is teaching kids to believe in a pure democracy in order to become a socialist state where government ownership of all private property rules the day. I want proof that this is happening is ASD and a cute little motto hanging on the wall is not good enough. I want to know how that motto is translating to the classroom and individual child. I want examples. I want proof.

Ken, thanks for the bait I won't ever be hooked by your fishing and provocations. Read these words by Bruce Hafen and learn from them: “I found myself wanting to tell our third-year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the church and elsewhere, because they can become contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves.”

Lewis, your points on McCarthy are quite informative. This page has helped me realize that Oak and his cronies are really McCarthyites. They want to bring back his fear and intimidation for all who oppse or disagree with them. An irony here is that McCarthy's interrogations helped make our government interference into our lives bigger than it had ever been before. Many of our freedoms the Founding Fathers gave us were taken in away in a few short years of McCarthyism.
The people that defend the beliefs of this page and Glenn Beck want to tear down and demonize anyone who opposes their views or has different interpretations then they do. They do not want freedom of thought. They accuse us of being liberal just because we see things differently.
They have avoided ever answering where in our constitution it is illegal to be socialist or communist (which I am not but I allow them to exist and have their say). They live by quotes from people with extreme views of politics. They do not want our country to have changed form their make-believe utopia that the founding fathers lived under. With a population of over 300 million we are not and cannot be the same we were then.
The supporters of this site need to hear these words of Dallin H. Oaks, “The Savior and his Apostles had no program for world peace other than individual righteousness. They mounted no opposition to the rule of Rome or to the regime of its local tyrants. They preached individual righteousness and taught that the children of God should love their enemies (see Matt. 5:44) and “live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18).” These people want only to tear down others and destroy them- they do not seek to bring peace through to the world and build up God's kingdom.
Gordon B. Hinckley also said, “Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.” Honest differences are not a reason to tear down others as so many of the posters on this site do.
Lewis, hopefully your appeal to Oak and his followers to being able to concede points to others will be heard. Bruce Hafen also commented on this issue: “You might also ask yourself how much governmental intervention into the regulation of business and private life is too much. The people on the extreme sides of these questions convey great certainty about what should be done. However, I think some of these people would rather be certain than right.” If it is more important to be Certain than right for these people they are not meek, humble, or submissive to God's will.
This is why I post on this site, to help them see they are heading down a dangerous path and dragging others along with them. When their emotional arguments take precedence over all else, they cannot ever discover truth. Leiws, keep up your dispassionate posts.

Lewis, nobody including you and me knows exactly what is happening in every classroom or faculty meeting in the district. The simple fact is, some teachers, and some meetings, are espousing these things and it's primarily because it's been pushed to them from the district. I personally know of 3 instances which occurred at different schools where children from 6-11th grade were told we are not a republic. Further, I have never stated ASD is teaching kids to believe in a pure democracy in order to become a socialist state. That's what the Daily Herald reported and it was false. My whole thrust at that time which they took out of context was to say that Goodlad is a fox and he's in the hen house and he's got some very disturbing views. Goodlad and Bill Ayers attend the same conferences and both espouse the need to teach democracy in education. This is all easily searchable on the web.

I further apologize to everyone on this board for some of the contentious posts. There's far too much acrimony and not enough seeking to understand. I am weighing shutting down the boards simply because of such heated exchanges. It does nobody any good.

Lewis said: “Again, like Oak Norton you take something someone says, twist around, and then attack it.” I assume you're referring to Goodlad. Prove that I've twisted his words. They're his own. He's an admitted socialist, humanist, atheist, and that comes with a lot of baggage. So prove I've twisted something he's said instead of tossing out accusations.

Oak, your entire movement of attacking the original Alpine School District motto: “Enculturating the young into a social and political democracy” is a great example. Not once have you proven that teachers are actually teaching students to be socialists based on the motto, but you sure do make it sound like they are. I have no problem with people raising an eyebrow and asking questions, but hopefully those who are asking questions are open to the answers they receive. I applaud you for asking those questions and taking an active role in the community, but you aren't accepting of their answers not matter how truthful they may be. You want to hear what you want to hear and won't rest until you get what you are after. Even though you know the motto has been quite innocuous in practice, you still won't accept Alpine School Districts response as to their interpretation of Goodlad's quote. That is what is truly important isn't it? How ASD is using the quote is, by far, more important than the quote itself or the Goodlad's biography where you make him out to be worse than Lenin. Dr. Gary Daynes of BYU gave a good lecture in 2005 on the issue. Daynes described social democracy as “a set of conditions that result when unrelated people put themselves in constant contact for reasons of mutual benefit. He differentiated political democracy as unrelated people who come together to make decisions about situations, which are in the intersections of their lives. He argued that social democracies are like neighborhoods, while political democracies are like networks of neighborhoods, and noted that these definitions also apply nicely to schools.” This may be different than what Goodlad believes and what you believe, but have you ever considered that what Daynes is saying is what ASD believes it to mean. Isn't what ASD believes more important than your interpretation. Your interpretation isn't guiding ASD, ASD's interpretation is guiding ASD.

The problem is that you cannot look past Goodlad himself and believe that ASD and BYU officials subscribe to your definition “social democracy” based on Goodlad's history. Perhaps Goodlad was pushing a socialist agenda, but that doesn't mean that ASD and BYU are doing so. Why can't they interpret Goodlad how they choose to interpret him rather than subscribe to your interpretation of him? Like I said before, you haven't given any proof that Goodlad's socialism is being taught to our students in ASD. Like Ken Bowers, you can't concede some points, no matter what the facts on the ground are saying. You come off as always right and never wrong. The world is a completely black and white place in your mind and there are no shades of grey whatsoever. You believe that if you promote any quotes by John Goodlad you are promoting socialism. Wasn't it your group that spouted a Karl Marx quote about Democracy? Does that now make your group socialist because it is reading Karl Marx and then quoting him? No. I don't believe that, but it is the same type of logic or lack thereof, that you and your lackeys have been engaging in. Perhaps ASD will change its motto over this entire issue. Who really cares? Mottos mean a lot more to those who create them than to teachers or students. Before the motto became an issue, I bet you would have a hard time finding teachers who even knew what the motto was in ASD. Now, they probably all know what it is, but I highly doubt they use it in the classroom because they have their respective curriculum to teach. You have made your point, Oak, and it is time to free the bee that has been flying around in your bonnet and move on.

You might be surprised to learn that the teachers certainly know the motto, which was created by John Goodlad. In fact, Goodlad's words are so significant to the ASD that the teachers are required to RECITE them at faculty meetings. It is not just logic or opinions that these parents and citizens use in determining what Goodlad's beliefs and desires are. They have done a great deal of study and research to determine truth based upon Goodlad's own words and the evidence that is present in the motto, the curriculum, and the teacher training practices that are embraced here. You might try doing some yourself so that your contrary views are based upon some facts.

That is funny, because the teacher friends that I talked to have never had to recite the motto at faculty meetings and went on to tell me that they didn't even know what the district motto was until Oak brought it to the forefront. Just because your school recites the motto, doesn't mean they all do as you insinuate, if you really are a teacher or just someone pretending to be. Regardless, if teachers are getting training on the meaning of the ASD motto, are they being taught to teach the kids to turn America into a pure democracy and therefore a socialist state as Oak contends? You mention basing views on “facts” but you have failed to provide any other than just parrot the “groupthink” that Oak and his minions are saying. Why don't you share with us on this forum what exactly ASD told you to do with their motto during your teacher training. Please enlighten us. Oak contends that ASD is teaching kids to believe in a pure democracy in order to become a socialist state where government ownership of all private property rules the day. I want proof that this is happening is ASD and a cute little motto hanging on the wall is not good enough. I want to know how that motto is translating to the classroom and individual child. I want specific examples. I want proof.

Ken, thanks for the bait I won't ever be hooked by your fishing and provocations. Read these words by Bruce Hafen and learn from them: “I found myself wanting to tell our third-year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the church and elsewhere, because they can become contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves.”

Lewis, your points on McCarthy are quite informative. This page has helped me realize that Oak and his cronies are really McCarthyites. They want to bring back his fear and intimidation for all who oppse or disagree with them. An irony here is that McCarthy's interrogations helped make our government interference into our lives bigger than it had ever been before. Many of our freedoms the Founding Fathers gave us were taken in away in a few short years of McCarthyism.
The people that defend the beliefs of this page and Glenn Beck want to tear down and demonize anyone who opposes their views or has different interpretations then they do. They do not want freedom of thought. They accuse us of being liberal just because we see things differently.
They have avoided ever answering where in our constitution it is illegal to be socialist or communist (which I am not but I allow them to exist and have their say). They live by quotes from people with extreme views of politics. They do not want our country to have changed form their make-believe utopia that the founding fathers lived under. With a population of over 300 million we are not and cannot be the same we were then.
The supporters of this site need to hear these words of Dallin H. Oaks, “The Savior and his Apostles had no program for world peace other than individual righteousness. They mounted no opposition to the rule of Rome or to the regime of its local tyrants. They preached individual righteousness and taught that the children of God should love their enemies (see Matt. 5:44) and “live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18).” These people want only to tear down others and destroy them- they do not seek to bring peace through to the world and build up God's kingdom.
Gordon B. Hinckley also said, “Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.” Honest differences are not a reason to tear down others as so many of the posters on this site do.
Lewis, hopefully your appeal to Oak and his followers to being able to concede points to others will be heard. Bruce Hafen also commented on this issue: “You might also ask yourself how much governmental intervention into the regulation of business and private life is too much. The people on the extreme sides of these questions convey great certainty about what should be done. However, I think some of these people would rather be certain than right.” If it is more important to be Certain than right for these people they are not meek, humble, or submissive to God's will.
This is why I post on this site, to help them see they are heading down a dangerous path and dragging others along with them. When their emotional arguments take precedence over all else, they cannot ever discover truth. Leiws, keep up your dispassionate posts.

Lewis, nobody including you and me knows exactly what is happening in every classroom or faculty meeting in the district. The simple fact is, some teachers, and some meetings, are espousing these things and it's primarily because it's been pushed to them from the district. I personally know of 3 instances which occurred at different schools where children from 6-11th grade were told we are not a republic. Further, I have never stated ASD is teaching kids to believe in a pure democracy in order to become a socialist state. That's what the Daily Herald reported and it was false. My whole thrust at that time which they took out of context was to say that Goodlad is a fox and he's in the hen house and he's got some very disturbing views. Goodlad and Bill Ayers attend the same conferences and both espouse the need to teach democracy in education. This is all easily searchable on the web.

I further apologize to everyone on this board for some of the contentious posts. There's far too much acrimony and not enough seeking to understand. I am weighing shutting down the boards simply because of such heated exchanges. It does nobody any good.