Newbill on Conspiracy, Counterjihad and Corruption


bho-terrorism-no-negotiation-but-finance

Here are some collected emails from Tony Newbill examining national/global conspiracies, Counterjihad issues that involves U.S. government collusion (Hello Barack & Crooked Hillary) and government corruption.

 

JRH 9/23/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

Newbill on Conspiracy, Counterjihad and Corruption

Tony Newbill

Posted on September 23, 2016

 

The Voters need to ask: How is the Government projecting a 260 million population reduction in the USA by 2025?

8/23/2016 11:48 PM

 

And I would Screen shot this site and save this information!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx

 

Forecast 2025 —                                                         — Rank — %

 

Population:                        61 million                         — 19    —     0.9

Density:                           6 inhabitants / sq. km. – 170 –  12.2

Gross Domestic Product:  $949 billion                    — 11 —       1.7

GDP per capita:                 $15,517                           — 49 —     192 

Purchase Power Parity:   $10,345                          — 78 —      111 

Military Budget:                $8.2 billion                   — 22 —           0.9

 

READ ENTIRETY (Deagel United States of America [Chart])

 

+++

This is coming to the USA if Hillary Clinton gets elected POTUS

8/24/2016 8:52 AM

 

This is coming to the USA if Hillary Clinton gets elected POTUS, because the Muslim Brotherhood’s Insider aid to Clinton wants this country for themselves and ISIS was created by the Insiders in our DoD!!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/175105516198463/permalink/293511281024552/?comment_id=293652361010444&notif_t=group_comment_reply&notif_id=1472045897637872

 

Tommy Tunes Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria

 

VIDEO: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1aDciHCejA

 

Posted by Ben Swann

Published on Nov 19, 2015

 

There is so much debate over how the U.S. and other nations will stop ISIS but can these leaders be trusted? Ben Swann exposes secret DOD documents that prove the U.S. wanted ISIS to emerge in Syria.

 

+++

OK so how do we know if these LOST TAXPAYER FUNDS ….

8/24/2016 10:20 AM

 

OK, so how do we know if these LOST TAXPAYER FUNDS were not used in bribes to buy U.S. and NATO Positions within Middle Eastern countries? And how do we know or not if the $400 million [Blog Editor Update: $1.7 Billion] recently given to Iran has not went to fund our enemies. Plus, as the funds were allocated how much of a cut did people involved in these transactions pocket?????

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-sloppy-bookkeeping-means-6-091500172.html

 

Pentagon’s Sloppy Bookkeeping Means $6.5 Trillion Can’t Pass an Audit

 

The Defense Department over the years has been notorious for its lax accounting practices. The Pentagon has never completed an audit of how they actually spend the trillions of dollars on wars, equipment, personnel, housing, healthcare and procurements.

 

An increasingly impatient Congress has demanded that the Army achieve “audit readiness” for the first time by Sept. 30, 2017, so that lawmakers can get a better handle on military spending. But Pentagon watchdogs think that may be mission impossible, and for good reason.

 

A Department of Defense inspector general’s report released last week offered a jaw-dropping insight into just how bad the military’s auditing system is.

 

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the behemoth Indianapolis-based agency that provides finance and accounting services for the Pentagon’s civilian and military members, could not provide adequate documentation for $6.5 trillion worth of year-end adjustments to Army general fund transactions and data.

 

The DFAS has the sole responsibility for paying all DOD military and personnel, retirees and annuitants, along with Pentagon contractors and vendors. The agency is also in charge of electronic government initiatives, including within the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Energy and the Departing of Veterans Affairs.

 

There’s nothing in the new IG’s report to suggest that anyone has misplaced or absconded with large sums of money. Rather, the agency has done an incompetent job of providing written authorization for every one of their transactions – so-called “journal vouchers” that READ THE REST (Pentagon’s Sloppy Bookkeeping Means $6.5 Trillion Can’t Pass an Audit; By The Fiscal Times; Yahoo Finance; 7/31/16)

 

+++

This tells us why they are looking at depopulation of the planet

8/24/2016 12:34 PM

 

http://energyskeptic.com/

 

[Blog Editor: It appears to me the above link is updated on a continuous basis. I’ll cross post an excerpt from the most recent update as of me taking a look]

 

Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge

 

Methane hydrate apocalypse? Maybe not…

Posted on September 20, 2016 by energyskeptic

 

[ I don’t think there’s enough evidence yet to decide for sure there won’t be a gas hydrate apocalypse, but here’s some evidence that this might not happen. Even Benton, who wrote “When Life Nearly Died” didn’t pin the mass murderer of the Permian extinction on gas hydrates.

 

I’ve also read Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky” and many other books and peer-reviewed articles, and will continue to try to follow the mystery of extinction events and who the mass murderers were.

 

Until then, here are some of the articles I’ve run across that cast some doubt on this being a sure thing, though clearly more research needs to be done.

 

There’s also the hope that peak oil, which makes all other resources available, including coal, natural gas and oil itself, prevent us from going extinct as energy reduces population back to about 1 billion or so (whatever it was before fossil fuels replaced wood and muscle power) and we READ THE REST

 

http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/100873/alice-friedemann-when-trucks-stop-running

 

Alice Friedemann is a transportation expert sounding the alarm on the unsustainable nature of our modern trucking system, which is critical for delivering goods where they need to be, when they need to be, in our just-in-time economy.

 

The world’s trucking fleet is remarkably dependent on petroleum and, for a number of reasons she outlines in this interview, is not feasibly able to shift over to electricity or other alternative fuels.

 

To warn of the risks and consequences of a collapse in trucking, she founded EnergySkeptic.com and authored the book When The Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation. And while unlikely, her projected aftermath of a sudden complete shutdown of the trucking fleet is sobering, revealing just how dependent we are:

 

Within a week, in roughly this order, grocery stores would be out of dairy and other items that are delivered many times a day. And by the week, the shelves would be empty.

Hospitals, pharmacies, factories, and many other businesses also get several deliveries a day, and they’d be running out of stuff the first day.

And the second day, there’s be panic and hoarding. And restaurants, pharmacies would close. ATM’s would be out of money. Construction would stop. There’d be increasing layoffs. Increasing enormous amounts of trash not getting picked up, 685,000 tons a day. Service stations would be closed. Very few people would be working. And the livestock would start to be hungry from lack of feed deliveries.

Then within two weeks, clean water supplies would run out. Within four weeks to eight weeks, there wouldn’t be coal delivered to power plants and electricity would start shutting down. And when that happened, about a quarter of our pipelines use electricity, and so natural gas plants wouldn’t be fed natural gas and they’d start shutting down.

It’s a big interdependent system. That’s part of the problem. It’s like Liebig’s Law of the Minimum. A plant needs about 20 READ OR LISTEN TO THE REST (Alice Friedemann: When The Trucks Stop Running: The modern trucking fleet is living on borrowed time; By Adam Taggart; Peak Prosperity; 8/21/16 11:59 AM)

 

+++

Here is the Stealth from within……

8/26/2016 3:35 PM

 

http://www.freedompost.org/islam/deception/civilization-jihad-aka-stealth-jihad.html

 

Civilization Jihad aka Stealth Jihad

 

  1. Origins of Civilization Jihad (Stealth Jihad)

 

August 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago in connection with fundraising for Hamas. In the basement of his home in Annandale, VA, a hidden sub-basement was found, containing 80 banker boxes of the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. One of the most important of these documents was the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum On The General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America” (English version or Arabic version), written in May 1991 primarily by Mohamed Akram, a former director of the United Association of Studies and Research (UASR), a Hamas front that was based in Northern Virginia from 1991 to 2004. UASR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorist finance trial case that this document was entered into evidence, was headed by Ahmed Yousef who now serves as political advisor to head of Hamas in Gaza, Ismail Haniya.

 

VIDEO: Muslim Brotherhood’s plan & Obama connection exposed (1:29:54)

 

READ THE REST (Civilization Jihad aka Stealth Jihad; Freedom Post)

 

+++

Sharia Law is Totalitarianism!!!!!!!!!

8/28/2016 12:20 PM  

 

LOOK how they are Taking over with TAXPAYER MONEY US Education POLICY!!!!!!!!

 

Film Warns of Education Caliphate

Documentary filmmaker goes in depth on the Gulen Movement charter schools in America

https://mountainrepublic.net/2016/08/28/film-warns-of-education-caliphate/#comment-20012

 

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/W6E8rVWlMuM

 

Posted by The Alex Jones Channel

Published on Aug 26, 2016

What if the Church of Scientology was able to get $500 MILLION PER YEAR in taxpayer money to educate children? That’s what an Islamic cult, the Gulen Movement, gets now. Filmmaker Mark Hall talks about his documentary, “Killing Ed”, that exposes crony capitalism and corruption in Charter Schools and the slander & censorship it has faced.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with READ THE REST

 

 

What if the Church of Scientology was able to get $500 MILLION PER YEAR in taxpayer money to educate children?

 

That’s what an Islamic cult, the Gulen Movement, gets now.

 

Filmmaker Mark Hall talks about his documentary, “Killing Ed,” that exposes crony capitalism and corruption in Charter Schools, and the slander and censorship it has faced.

 

VIDEO: Film Exposes Islamic Takeover Of US Schools

 

Posted by The Alex Jones Channel

Published on Aug 26, 2016

The Islamic State may be more subtle in America than in Syria, using money to gain influence, establish schools and brainwash the next generation.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re READ THE REST

 

(Film Warns of Education Caliphate; By Mountain Republic; 8/28/16)

 

And check this CRAZY OUT!!!!!!    https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1115117425300184/

 

Britain First

August 28 at 8:06am

 

SHOCKING: Muslim blood RITUAL! coming to a street NEAR YOU!

 

For more explosive content like this please like Britain First

 

VIDEO: SHOCKING- Muslim blood RITUAL- coming to a street NEAR YOU

 

And this is NOT Constitutional either!!!!  Stated multiple Times (Totalitarian) is against the structures of America, and against its governing system. These people that support Totalitarianism are NOT to be permitted entry to the United States :: See page 185 Chapter 2 section 212 Article (28) subpart (D)…:

 

 http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

public-law-414-june-27-1952-pg-185-chapter-2-section-212-article-28-subpart-d

This is what we will get with Hillary Clinton as POTUS and Mr. Trump needs to POUND on this!!!!!! The Democrats have become totalitarian in their sense of how the USA should be, so they can implement their Climate Change Anti-Human restrictive regulatory ambitions. Mr. Trump needs to HOUND the AIRWAVES with this debate!!!!!!!!!  

 

Here is a segment of the FrontPageMag story on Hillary is trying to bring Sharia Law and the US Constitution together, oh my!!!!

 

  “As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton affirmed the Obama Administration’s support for this campaign on July 15, 2011, when she gave an address on the freedom of speech at an OIC [i.e. Organization of Islamic Cooperation] conference on Combating Religious Intolerance.

 

“Together,” she said, “we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new approach.”

 

But how could both be protected? Ihsanoglu [Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu] offered the answer: criminalizing what he considered to be hatred and incitement to violence. “We cannot and must not ignore the implications of hate speech and incitement of discrimination and violence.” But in restricting the freedom of speech, Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with, and so in place of legal restrictions on criticizing Islam, she suggested “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She held a lengthy closed-door meeting with Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC’s anti-free speech agenda, which amounted to an attempt to impose Sharia blasphemy laws upon the West. But what agreements she and Ihsanoglu made, if any, have never been disclosed. Hillary’s contact with Ihsanoglu was initiated by Gulen’s associate Ozkok. Read more at these links:

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263536/hillarys-imam-robert-spencer 

 

We need to POUND this HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Lots or material on this ANTI-American Topic:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/for-the-left-totalitarianism-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/ 

 

I like to think of myself as a pioneer in warning about the rise of the New Totalitarianism in America, which is really not much different than the old totalitarianism. The most important difference is that the new breed is better at hypnotizing itself into thinking they’re good-hearted, compassionate souls who just want the best for everyone… except, of course, the dissenters they grind beneath their jackboots.

 

 

Push them harder, and they’ll claim their seething hatred for the Christian bakers – their totalitarian urge to use the power of the State to personally destroy these innocent people – isn’t a black mark against their “compassion” and “tolerance,” because those bakers aren’t really people at all, at least not in the same sense that loving gay couples who demand cakes for READ THE REST (For the Left, Totalitarianism Is a Feature, Not a Bug; By JOHN HAYWARD; Breitbart; 7/10/15)

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/07/08/examples_of_the_new_totalitarianism

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Now I want to go back to the rest of the new totalitarian piece and give you some examples of it.  And it has been suggested to me that I ask all of you to start paying attention to examples of this that you encounter. Not necessarily things that happen to you, but things that you see in the news, maybe where you live or just anywhere.  Just make a note of it, and become aware of it.  It’s one thing to have this new totalitarianism described to you.  By the way, it’s not new.  The real brilliance of this piece is like Angelo Codevilla’s piece on the ruling class.

 

 

It just infuriates them because the key element of totalitarianism, not only will you be defeated by them, but in time you will love them, and you will agree with them, and you will support them, and you will actively join them.  And you will not disagree.  That is what we are in the midst of seeing. …

 

 

“For a fair number of people in what’s supposed to be a democracy, ‘winning’ in any normal political sense simply isn’t enough. They are not really trying to capture something as pedestrian as political equality, nor are they satisfied if they get it.” They claim that’s what they’re about.  Equality.  They’re not about equality at all.  They’re about total domination.

 

 

… That’s why the Republicans have fallen into a huge trap on all of this.  Bipartisanship.  They are not bipartisan.  Somebody give me an example of left-wing bipartisanship.  They don’t even define it the way we do.  Bipartisanship, as they define it, as in we cave on our core beliefs and agree with them.  That is bipartisanship.  There is no compromise.

 

 

So, folks, it’s an all-out assault on the criminal justice system and an attempt, which will not stop, to have the entire Grand Jury system found corrupt, and if they could get rid of it. And why?  Because they didn’t get the result.  They did not prevail.  There are people who disagree with them, and that will not be tolerated.  People who disagree with them, whether they are high judges, whether they are prosecutors, whether they are average ordinary every day citizens, it will not be tolerated.

 

 

“A new document reveals that the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the FBI colluded to prosecute Barack Obama opponents.”  This is from Judicial Watch.  Involves Lois Lerner.  Just the headlines, folks: “New Docs Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Colluding to Prosecute Obama Opponents.” These are the 501(c)(3)s that the conservative fundraising group is asking for tax-exempt status.  Judicial Watch has found evidence that the DOJ, the IRS, the FBI were colluding to prosecute them out of existence.

 

END TRANSCRIPT READ ENTIRETY (Examples of the New Totalitarianism; Transcript of Rush Limbaugh Show; 7/8/15)

 

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill

Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT One


Stalin-FDR sitting side-by-side

John R. Houk

© August 13, 2013

 

I have been on a general quest to examine the impeachable offenses of past Presidents from the 20th century to the present. So far I have posted on Theodore Roosevelt to Warren Harding followed by Calvin Coolidge to Franklin Roosevelt.

 

In looking at FDR I focused primarily on the impeachable potential related to the New Deal still hailed under the mythology as digging the USA out of the Great Depression. I showed that the numbers do not match the mythology. Most realistic Economists show that the American prosperity returned to the USA largely to the war production involved in building a military to confront a two-theater war against Nazi Germany (Europe and N. Africa) and Imperial Japan (Pacific and Asia).

 

I was thinking after I posted on FDR that there are other nefarious actions that I believe under the U.S. Constitution could have been impeachable. BUT I sincerely doubt such info was made public even by people who knew and even in the present Democrats would pooh-pooh the documented evidence as Conservative sour grapes meant to smear a man under hero worship in American history.

 

The nefarious actions I did not get to in writing of FDR potential impeachable offensives is the degree that Marxism had infiltrated his Administration. But before I get to the Marxist-FDR issue I feel the need to address one of the sources in the last post that looked at FDR.

 

I did allude that the Presidential powers enjoyed by FDR were near dictatorial. The primary source for the dictatorial accusation about FDR comes from Jonah Goldberg. As a Conservative I like Jonah Goldberg. Here is a short profile from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

 

Research Areas:

 

·         U.S. politics and culture

 

·         The Progressive movement

 

·         The Conservative movement

 

·        Media

 

 

A bestselling author and columnist, Jonah Goldberg’s nationally syndicated column appears regularly in scores of newspapers across the United States. He is also a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a contributor to Fox News, a contributing editor to National Review, and the founding editor of National Review Online. He was named by the Atlantic magazine as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. In 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, The Tyranny of Clichés (Sentinel HC, 2012) and Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008).  At AEI, Mr. Goldberg writes about political and cultural issues for American.com and the Enterprise Blog.

 

Experience

 

·         Contributing editor, National Review, 1998 – present

 

·         Founding editor, editor-at-large, National Review Online, 1998 – present

 

·         Columnist, 1999-present

 

·         Senior Producer, Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, 1994 – 98

 

·         Research assistant, American Enterprise Institute, 1992 – 94

 

Education

 

B.A., Goucher College

 

All in all as a Conservative I find these credentials quite respectable. It would be even nicer if Goldberg was able to add a Masters and a Ph.D. to his résumé. Lacking the academic credentials it has been a boon for Progressives when they notice that either Goldberg or a publicist (or maybe both) have inflated his honors. The use of false honors admittedly tarnish books and articles in their credibility in scholarship.

 

Here are a couple examples from Left Wing online rags that have taken the full opportunity to impugn Jonah Goldberg:

 

Jonah Goldberg profile picture including glowing profile

clip_image001

 

On the dust jacket of his new book, “The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas,” best-selling conservative author and commentator Jonah Goldberg is described as having “twice been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.”

 

In fact, as Goldberg acknowledged on Tuesday, he has never been a Pulitzer nominee, but is merely one of thousands of entrants.

 

When this bit of résumé inflation was pointed out by a reporter for msnbc.com, Goldberg said he hadn’t meant to mislead anyone and removed the Pulitzer claim from his bio at National Review Online. …

 

His publisher, Penguin Group (USA), said the error was unintentional and it would remove the Pulitzer word from his book jacket when it’s time for the first reprint, “just like any other innocent mistake brought to our attention.” …

 

What’s surprising in Goldberg’s case is that he has been called out for the same résumé padding before, when his previous book was published.

 

There is more character destroying if you choose to read entirety (Conservative author Jonah Goldberg drops claim of two Pulitzer nominations; By Bill Dedman, Investigative Reporter; NBC News; 5/9/12 2:36 AM)

 

Then there is Slate in 2008 castigating Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”: 

 

Why did Jonah Goldberg write Liberal Fascism? To find out, you must wade through 391 pages of tendentious scholarship. A mighty jackbooted procession—Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Herbert Marcuse, John F. Kennedy, Saul Alinsky, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton—goose-steps across the page to illustrate Goldberg’s apparent belief that, with the exception of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and everything published in National Review (where Goldberg is contributing editor), every word previously written or spoken in favor of mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. …

 

 

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he’s responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

 

 

Goldberg’s argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn’t news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for “National Socialist German Workers Party”). Also true, and also known to most educated people.

 

 

…  Here Goldberg is, for instance, trying very hard not to call Franklin Roosevelt a fascist:

 

This is not to say that the New Deal was evil or Hitlerian. But the New Deal was a product of the impulses and ideas of its era. And these ideas and impulses are impossible to separate from the fascist moment in Western civilization. … Franklin Rosevelt (sic) was no fascist, at least not in the sense that he thought of himself in this way. But many of his ideas and policies were indistinguishable from fascism. And today we live with the fruits of fascism, and we call them liberal.

 

Thirty-five pages later, Goldberg can hold back no longer. “[I]t seems impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic,” he crows, imposing without irony a Marxist analysis.

 

The rest of Goldberg’s argument unfolds as follows: Wilson begat FDR, who begat contemporary liberalism. The only reason the United States didn’t remain a fascist country like Italy or Germany or Spain was “American exceptionalism,” i.e., the public’s resistance to tyranny over the long term. But Democratic presidents from Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton continued either to impose fascism or to bring the country terrifyingly close to it. To demonstrate this, Goldberg is obliged to render an ever-more-flexible definition of the word fascist.

 

Was Bill Clinton a fascist president? Well, he certainly believed in the primacy of emotion and the supremacy of his own intellect. … But I think if we are going to call him a fascist, it must be in the sense that he was a sponge for the ideas and emotions of liberalism. To say that he was a fascist is to credit him with more ideology and principle than justified. He was the sort of president liberal fascism could only produce during unexciting times.

 

 

By this point, Goldberg’s reasoning has progressed from unconvincing to incoherent. Modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (Himmler ordered his men “to father as many children as possible without marrying” in order to achieve the Aryan ideal). Eventually, Goldberg backs himself into asserting, in effect, that any government that does more than prevent abortions and provide for the common defense is inherently fascist. …

 

Character Assassination in entirety (Am I a Fascist? Jonah Goldberg’s tendentious history of liberalism; By Timothy Noah; Slate; 1/28/08 7:49 AM)

 

Timothy Noah’s criticism isn’t based on dented credentials, but rather Left Wing rage about equating the history of American Liberalism with the seeds of fascism. Noah’s rage is exposed as mere character assassination by,

 

Goldberg’s argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn’t news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for “National Socialist German Workers Party”). Also true, and also known to most educated people.” (Bold Emphasis mine)

 

Out of Noah’s own mouth (or I guess keyboard): Noah is full of crap in criticizing Goldberg.

 

So Goldberg connected the dots to the historical phenomena of using fascist ideology as a global symptom to reverse global economic global depression. Just as fascism in its essence is connected to Socialism, it needs to be pointed out that at least influential people in the FDR Administration had an affinity to Soviet inspired Marxism as a utopian longer term solution for a transformed human society.

 

Check out this excerpt from the admittedly Conservative Human Events posting a book review to M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein’s book entitled, “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”.

 

How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, Evans mentioned at a recent lecture, succeeds best when people want to be deceived. Franklin Roosevelt’s willful blindness to Stalin’s malignant goals, aggravated by the President’s health problems, was clearly a major cause. FDR saw what he wanted to see: that Josef Stalin liked him and would cooperate in preserving a peaceful and just world. That mindset went hand-in-hand with a New Deal bureaucracy chock-a-block with Soviet agents, Communist party members and ardent Stalinist sympathizers, including two FDR confidants, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Hopkins, FDR’s most trusted friend who for several years lived at the White House. (INFILTRATION, INTRIGUE AND COMMUNISTS; By Wes Vernon; Human Events; 1/11/2013 02:10 PM)

 

Before I look at the Soviet agents and sympathizers this book review mentions, it is probably important to get ahead of the typical Leftist accusation of using Right Wing nut jobs as a credible source (as if Left Wing nut jobs are a credible source).

 

M. Stanton Evans

 

In writing “Stalin’s Secret Agents” Stanton used primary sources. Something Leftists won’t mention in criticizing Stanton. Rather than criticizing original source material Leftists typically fall back on vilifying one’s intellectual character if they are a part of the Conservative Right. In another book review of Evan’s book mentioned above Isabel Mittelstadt writes:

 

Evans stressed the importance of using primary sources, explaining to the audience that secondary sources – such as the Internet – are often just “recycled [information] that people have not researched themselves.”  The authors’ reliance on primary sources in developing the research for their book gives readers a strong sense of credibility.

 

The conclusions Evans reached from conducting this thorough research brought him to draw parallels between Communist infiltration during World War II and problems he sees in today’s politics. (Clear & Present Dangers; By Isabel Mittelstadt; Accuracy in Academia; 6/25/13)

 

Here is the typical criticism Evans receives at the hands of Left Wingers. In this case about his book “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and his Fight Against America’s Enemies” written originally in 2007:

 

Ronald Radosh, a historian and expert on the Cold War spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, states that “rather than a biography, Evans has written a defense counsel’s brief for his client, whom he seeks to defend against all the slanders made about McCarthy by his political enemies.” He praises Evans’ “extensive research”, and his exposure of the political agendas of McCarthy’s main opponents and their unwillingness to look more closely into Soviet penetration. He also commends Evans for correcting the view that all of McCarthy’s victims were innocent. Radosh severely criticises McCarthy’s failure to distinguish between communists and anti-communist liberals, and between those expressing communist views and those working as Soviet agents, and criticises Evans for glossing over this. Radosh concludes:[3]

 

Evans’s book falls far short of what it might have done to correct the record about the era. His own exaggerations and unwarranted leaps parallel those made by McCarthy. It is unlikely that his hope to change history’s verdict will become a reality as a result of the publication of this book.

 

Reviewing the book for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize-winning American historian David Oshinsky was harshly critical, calling Evans’ primary thesis a “remarkable fantasy,” asserting that Evans has uncovered no fresh evidence and arguing that the evidence supports the historical consensus that Communist spy networks in the United States had largely been dismantled by the time McCarthy started his campaign and that McCarthy was “a bit player in the battle against Communist subversion, a latecomer who turned a vital crusade into a political mud bath… The fiercely negative judgments of those who lived through the McCarthy era are widely accepted today for good reason: they ring true.”[1]

 

Kirkus Reviews called the book “[a] revisionist biography”, which although a “detailed account” is “marred by ideological blinders” and fit “[f]or true believers only”,[2] Publishers Weekly describing Evans as “given to conspiracy thinking”[4] and Reason magazine describing it as “revisionist” and “a breathless defense of McCarthy.”[5] (Blacklisted by HistoryReviews; from Wikipedia; last modified on 7/29/14 at 08:50)

 

In a book review for the same book Wes Vernon writes the Evans response to such criticism:

 

Generally, the media that trashed the Evans book did so either from a wealth of ignorance or willingness to gloss over the book’s irrefutable documentation.

 

As Evans tells AIM, “the negative reviews in almost all cases conform to a common pattern” of error on three points in particular:

 

1—“Failure to come to grips” with such issues as the bogus quote imputed to McCarthy of “205” communists in the State Department, the case of Annie Lee Moss, and the real security dangers at Fort Monmouth. Considering that Evans’ style in the 643-page book is to avoid name-calling while methodically laying out the evidence,  his description of critics as failing to “come to grips” with reality may be his polite way of saying (correctly in our judgment) that where the facts did not fit the critics’ biases, the facts were simply ignored. One cannot be a failure at something unless one first tries to succeed.

 

2—Misrepresenting what the author had to say about Owen Lattimore, McCarthy’s George Marshall speech, and the sources of McCarthy’s information. As Evans says, “Some of these distortions are so far afield from my actual views as to suggest the reviewer hasn’t read the book (the most charitable explanation that I can think of).”

 

3—In lieu of facts, there were those who resorted to the ad hominem attack. “By far the worst” of these was an “utterly false” accusation by Ronald Radosh. (Mainstream Media Try to Burn a Book; By Wes Vernon; Accuracy in Media; 6/24/08)

 

 

The lesson is read the original sources before engaging in vilification. On the other hand a few Conservatives notably of the background toward which I often gravitate toward (i.e. Neoconservatives) have been critical of M. Stanton Evans. Notably former Left Wingers turned Conservative Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz. Actually in Horowitz’s case the criticism lay in another journalist-writer Diana West who publish a similar indictment about Marxist infiltration into the U.S. Government (American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character). Radosh’s academic credentials are quite impressive. David Solway writing on PJMedia provides an even tempered outlook in the Diana West vs. Radosh-Horowitz disagreement on scholastic analysis:

 

 

It began when David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine scrubbed Mark Tapson’s favorable account of the book and replaced it with Ron Radosh’s intemperate and distressingly ad hominem demolition masking as a “review.” Indeed, Radosh’s logomachic intervention read more like a personal vendetta than a scrupulous assessment. As a seasoned writer and veteran debater, Radosh should have known better. From that point on, a war of words was launched and the psychodrama shows no signs of tapering off. West published her Rebuttal and was heatedly defended by the notable historian Andrew Bostom and by many of the talkbackers to Horowitz’s own site. Meanwhile Horowitz and Radosh, and even the orotund Conrad Black, continued to pummel both book and author.

 

 

I can only say that Diana West’s thesis is surely deserving of scholarly consideration, whether pro or con. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, one must recognize that her argument is meticulously researched and abundantly footnoted. It seems to me that David Horowitz was wrong to remove a review that he had originally vetted and, furthermore, to substitute a largely personal imprecation in its stead rather than, say, to post a countervailing review and let the reader decide. Whatever his motive, the decision leaves an editorial stench that is not easily dissipated.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Revisiting the Diana West Controversy: The ongoing implosion of the conservative ethos; By David Solway; PJMedia; 9/16/13 12:01 am)

 

Since West’s book American Betrayal broaches the same subject matter that many of the well-researched and documented works of M. Stanton Evans, I had to include that here pertaining to source criticism.

 

End Part One

 

JRH 8/13/14

Please Support NCCR