By Douglas V. Gibbs ——Bio and Archives--May 2, 2016
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing, "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert; beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victim of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."
Although most of McCarthy’s cases involved actual spies and “security risks,” the really important issue was that of communist influence over American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan to prevent German reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White at the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support was the product of “China Hands” led by John Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described other major spy networks — in England, the Burgess Maclean group which infiltrated Washington as well as London. Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but McCarthy’s speeches had made him think and start to read “evidence that I had avoided.” He described how all during his military career as a Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had wanted him discredited. Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, 'Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator,' and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy’s charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian’s Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy’s charges “was no longer a matter of debate,” that they are “now accepted as fact.” However, the term “McCarthyism” still remains in the language. Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn’t realized he’d be fighting against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said, and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared investigations of their past appointments and associations with people who turned out to be communists or sympathizers. That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.As the Trump Campaign continues to march forward in 2016, violence by protesters has not only become common, but the Latino protesters are promising more violence, and more agitation. Is this violence and hate towards a Republican Party candidate who says, essentially, that he intends to enforce American immigration law, being brought upon our country by good people who want a better America? My wife was born in Mexico, immigrated here legally as a child, and naturalized in 2007. She had the idea to build a wall long before Trump emerged on the political scene with his call for a wall. My wife, however, wants to add a moat full of alligators, and gun turrets. Is she being racist against Mexicans? Or does she understand the importance of protecting the American System from an invasion of people who reject our culture of freedom? Violence has been one of the consequences of our nation being filled with bad people, and more specifically letting bad people who hate this country into our country with a blessing and a whole list of entitlements they never paid for. Is all of the violence at the Trump rallies being caused by illegal aliens? Not necessarily. Those who aren't illegal, however, who are acting violent at these rallies, support policies that let bad people into our country. In the first clause of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, Congress is given the authority to "prohibit" the importation of slaves, and to prohibit the "migration" of people they believe should be prohibited from entering the country. The part about slavery outlawed the Atlantic Slave Trade as of 1808, a move that the Founding Fathers hoped would begin the journey towards ending slavery in America. Most of the signers of the Constitution were abolitionists, and they believed slavery would end in America during their lifetimes. The part in Article I, Section 9 about the "migration of such persons" addresses immigration, and was designed to protect the country from allowing bad people to enter the country and reside among us. Understand that immigration was a big deal back then. The United States was growing by leaps and bounds. We needed all of the immigrants we could get. The Western Frontier was beginning to expand westward, and as a developing nation we needed to increase our workforce, and increase our population. So, if we needed more immigrants so badly, why would the Founding Fathers enable Congress to limit who could come into the country? There were those out there who wished to destroy the American System before it could get off the ground. The British Empire, after the American Revolution, didn't even officially recognize the United States as a sovereign country. Those loyal to The Empire figured the experiment would fail, and the Americans would go crawling back into the arms of the monarchy. The United States, however, refused to cry "uncle." We even fought a second revolution against Great Britain in The War of 1812, during which Americans holding high position were often captured, and then hung for treason against The Empire.
View Comments
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.