JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[William Kelly]

Evan has taken responsibility for asking members to post an avatar. Once you have a rule like this it has to be enforced. For some reason, despite several emails, Evan Marshall has never provided reasons why he has not supplied a photograph as an avatar. If he had done so, we would have considered his case for not having an avatar.

Please also note that I acted because I was chastised for not acting earlier on the matter of an avatar:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14219

**********

I support all the nominations for mods put forward by John.

I don't have the time to be a mod, nor is it something I would be good at.

I understand Evan Burton has tried to be even handed, and it is difficult, but I also think that it is understandable that Evan Marshall should be except from having to post his photo for obvious reasons related to his job. If he won't ask you for that exception I am asking it for him, so he will remain a member of the forum and continue contributing when he can.

So far I have been accused of having crumbs in my beard, food on my tie, working at a casino, miss spelling George DeMohrenschildt, intentionally missleading people and plagerism.

Only the crumbs and spelling is possibly true. Now if my golf game is brought up I will file another formal complaint.

BK

That would be plagiarism, misleading, misspelling and George de Mohrenschildt, and uttering a threat and not necessarily in that order.

I am very serious on the last issue, Bill, just exactly what did you mean by that uttered threat?

PLEASE REPEAT THE THREAT AGAIN? I DON'T RECALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

And now you deny you told me that you

were a dealer at an Atlantic City casino working under the auspices of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission?

I'VE NEVER WORKED AT AN ATLANTIC CITY CASINO, AND WOULD NEVER TELL ANYONE I DID. YOU MUST MISTAKE ME FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

WHILE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POST BEFORE, ACCUSING ME OF COMMITTING A CRIME ON THIS FORM OF SOME KIND OF THREAT - "ACROSS STATE LINES" - AND TRYING TO GET ME FIRED FROM THE IMAGINARY CASINO JOB I NEVER HAD, IT CERTAINLY TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE OUT TO HARM ME IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.

I ONCE AGAIN ASK THAT IF THERE ARE ANY LIVING, AND AWAKE MODERATORS ON THIS FORUM, TO PLEASE REFRAIN MEMBERS FROM ACCUSING OTHERS OF CRIMES, MAKING UP JOBS AND ATTRIBUTING FICTIONAL QUOTES TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FORUM.

NOW I AM BEING ACCUSED OF MAKING A CRIMINAL THREAT ACROSS STATE LINES THAT WILL GET ME FIRED FROM MY IMAGINARY JOB, A THREAT THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY FORUM RULES?

WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS THREAT AGAIN?

IF THERE IS A MODERATOR ALIVE I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

THANKS,

BK

Note: And please do not remove this "utterance of a threat" posting until someone has had the chance to determine why it was posted, who posted it and exactly what was being stated or implied. I for one would recommend a punishment appropriate with the severity and maliciousness of this uttered threat. Threats just have no place in a civilized society and you should be held fully accountable for making that threat. The least I can do is to make a formal protest to that effect to the moderators. And the most I could do is to file a complaint with the appropriate higher authorities who have jurisdiction over such egregious and offensive and possibly illegal statements.

[David G. Healy]

Evan has taken responsibility for asking members to post an avatar. Once you have a rule like this it has to be enforced. For some reason, despite several emails, Evan Marshall has never provided reasons why he has not supplied a photograph as an avatar. If he had done so, we would have considered his case for not having an avatar.

Please also note that I acted because I was chastised for not acting earlier on the matter of an avatar:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14219

**********

I support all the nominations for mods put forward by John.

I don't have the time to be a mod, nor is it something I would be good at.

I understand Evan Burton has tried to be even handed, and it is difficult, but I also think that it is understandable that Evan Marshall should be except from having to post his photo for obvious reasons related to his job. If he won't ask you for that exception I am asking it for him, so he will remain a member of the forum and continue contributing when he can.

So far I have been accused of having crumbs in my beard, food on my tie, working at a casino, miss spelling George DeMohrenschildt, intentionally missleading people and plagerism.

Only the crumbs and spelling is possibly true. Now if my golf game is brought up I will file another formal complaint.

BK

That would be plagiarism, misleading, misspelling and George de Mohrenschildt, and uttering a threat and not necessarily in that order.

I am very serious on the last issue, Bill, just exactly what did you mean by that uttered threat?

PLEASE REPEAT THE THREAT AGAIN? I DON'T RECALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

And now you deny you told me that you

were a dealer at an Atlantic City casino working under the auspices of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission?

I'VE NEVER WORKED AT AN ATLANTIC CITY CASINO, AND WOULD NEVER TELL ANYONE I DID. YOU MUST MISTAKE ME FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

WHILE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POST BEFORE, ACCUSING ME OF COMMITTING A CRIME ON THIS FORM OF SOME KIND OF THREAT - "ACROSS STATE LINES" - AND TRYING TO GET ME FIRED FROM THE IMAGINARY CASINO JOB I NEVER HAD, IT CERTAINLY TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE OUT TO HARM ME IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.

I ONCE AGAIN ASK THAT IF THERE ARE ANY LIVING, AND AWAKE MODERATORS ON THIS FORUM, TO PLEASE REFRAIN MEMBERS FROM ACCUSING OTHERS OF CRIMES, MAKING UP JOBS AND ATTRIBUTING FICTIONAL QUOTES TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FORUM.

NOW I AM BEING ACCUSED OF MAKING A CRIMINAL THREAT ACROSS STATE LINES THAT WILL GET ME FIRED FROM MY IMAGINARY JOB, A THREAT THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY FORUM RULES?

WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS THREAT AGAIN?

IF THERE IS A MODERATOR ALIVE I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

THANKS,

BK

Note: And please do not remove this "utterance of a threat" posting until someone has had the chance to determine why it was posted, who posted it and exactly what was being stated or implied. I for one would recommend a punishment appropriate with the severity and maliciousness of this uttered threat. Threats just have no place in a civilized society and you should be held fully accountable for making that threat. The least I can do is to make a formal protest to that effect to the moderators. And the most I could do is to file a complaint with the appropriate higher authorities who have jurisdiction over such egregious and offensive and possibly illegal statements.

"IF THERE IS A MODERATOR ALIVE I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?"

the mod's are at Bill Miller's 6th floor museum coming out party. So look to the 6th floor for mod's...as for John Bevilaqua? He's probably hosting that same party. No one is buying the Draper nonsense and the guy builds a resentment.

Bill, concerning the JFK assassination case, you're miles ahead of most here -- resentment is inevitable. Blow it off, the guy isn't worth your time!

Edited May 24, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Denis Pointing]

Bill, concerning the JFK assassination case, you're miles ahead of most here -- resentment is inevitable. Blow it off, the guy isn't worth your time!

This has got to be a first and hopefully a last, but I find myself actually agreeing with David Healy.

Bill, dont let this raving fanatic intimidate you. Just enjoy the irony, Belivaqua emulates and uses the same tactics as the man he claims to despise the most...Joe McCarthy!!

Edited May 24, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Len Colby]

Of course, Evan Burton, the high school hall monitor did this even though nobody complained.

I have endlessly complained about the monitoring. There now and for quite some time seems to be only one active [hyperactive] commando monitor who you name above. It seems that well over 90% of all actions are taken by them alone. Two monitors haven't been seen on the Forum in months [one for over a year]. The remaining seem to rubber-stamp what the Master-Monitor starts-up. I think this is one of the reasons many have fled this Forum. Of course agregious violations of the rules should be inforced, but in an evenhanded manner and with some leeway for special situations. One recent thread was closed as it was truthful and about a friend of said monitor. Said monitor even once [wish I could find it] started a thread and then closed it himself when the thread didn't go to his desired direction. Another favorite is moderation of a thread that the moderator is an active and contentious participant in....real fair play. Maybe we should start a detention hall. In my school that was a green slip. Or even waterboarding and keep up with the times.

Peter's failure to correct Bill's error was quite hypocritical, because he (Peter) had complained about Evan Marshall's lack of an avatar and then complained that RCD's was unclear.

The idea of him being a moderator makes me think of the works of Kafka, Ionesco and Orwell or perhaps even Mel Brooks. I think it'd be hilarious because he wouldn't be able to bitch and moan any more. If he accepts I nominate Craig to be the anti-Peter.

Here's the thread he bitched about Evan openning and closing:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry122643

[William Kelly]

Of course, Evan Burton, the high school hall monitor did this even though nobody complained.

I have endlessly complained about the monitoring. There now and for quite some time seems to be only one active [hyperactive] commando monitor who you name above. It seems that well over 90% of all actions are taken by them alone. Two monitors haven't been seen on the Forum in months [one for over a year]. The remaining seem to rubber-stamp what the Master-Monitor starts-up. I think this is one of the reasons many have fled this Forum. Of course agregious violations of the rules should be inforced, but in an evenhanded manner and with some leeway for special situations. One recent thread was closed as it was truthful and about a friend of said monitor. Said monitor even once [wish I could find it] started a thread and then closed it himself when the thread didn't go to his desired direction. Another favorite is moderation of a thread that the moderator is an active and contentious participant in....real fair play. Maybe we should start a detention hall. In my school that was a green slip. Or even waterboarding and keep up with the times.

Peter's failure to correct Bill's error was quite hypocritical, because he (Peter) had complained about Evan Marshall's lack of an avatar and then complained that RCD's was unclear.

The idea of him being a moderator makes me think of the works of Kafka, Ionesco and Orwell or perhaps even Mel Brooks. I think it'd be hilarious because he wouldn't be able to bitch and moan any more. If he accepts I nominate Craig to be the anti-Peter.

Here's the thread he bitched about Evan openning and closing:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry122643

Apparently there are no monitors.

When a forum member makes up bizarre quotes and attributes them to another forum member three times, despite repeated complaints, endlessly repeats the same statements over and over, steps on possibly important posts, and tries to get another forum member fired from an imaginary job, well, at least we know what John Denis Waver von Staufen Bevloqvoskavsy looks like.

What if I really did work at a casino? At a job that my family depended on for support? He would have filed an imaginary complaint to my casino boss and the state intelligence agency - CCC, and have me fired because he's crazy. What kind of person is that?

What kind of monitor would permit this to continue for a week?

This forum doesn't need monitors, it needs honest, intelligent, educated and responsible members who want to share their research and work with others, and not nut cases who are fanatically blinded by their beliefs or psychologically bent bullies.

JB is a bully, and being psychologically nuts is no excuse.

And the so-called monitors have no excuse for allowing this abnormal behavior to continue until someone really gets hurt.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[William Kelly]

I agree with Bill that John become increasing unpleasant. This happened last time he was an active member. However, as far as I know, no one has complained to the moderators about his behaviour until now. I would think there is a good case for him being placed on moderation.

Well I for one complained to the moderators just a week ago, the complaint being that many of Bevilaqua's posts have very little, if indeed any, real relevance to the assassination or case. It was made crystal clear that whilst the moderator was sympathetic and even hinted at agreement no action was going to be taken, frankly I was confused as the complaint was a legitimate one, until I was informed by a mod (who under no circumstances will be named) that the moderators had been instructed, by yourself (John Simkin) to "allow Bevilaqua a great deal of latitude". Any comment Mr Simkin? Is it true that because of personal friendship, political affiliation or whatever reason Bevilaqua's posts are not bound by the rules of this forum? Perhaps you feel Bevilaqua is a more importaint member than the rest of us plebs? Or perhaps he pulls more "hits"? This is your forum Mr Simkin, you own it, so if this is the case no one, least of all me, can deny you have the right. But I feel it would be a great shame if the ED forum went the same way as the Rich Dellarosa site where favoritism and protection is the norm. I sincerly hope I've not breached any forum rules with these rather awkward questions, I'm more than aware that I dont carry any special privileges here...the question is can the same be said for Bevilaqua ?

\

Is it true that John Bevilaqua had been a member of this forum before and had been banned or otherwise left?

Is it true that John Simkin has given moderators instructions to give him a "great deal of latitude"?

Thanks,

BK

[Denis Pointing]

Is it true that John Bevilaqua had been a member of this forum before and had been banned or otherwise left?

Is it true that John Simkin has given moderators instructions to give him a "great deal of latitude"?

Thanks,

BK

Bill, I've sent you a P.M....judge for yourself.

[Antti Hynonen]

I've just used the "Report!" button (to the left bottom of each post, visible when you're logged in). It may well be that this will solve your problem of going unheard by the authorities. My message to them: "Some of the inhabitants have complaints about John Bevilaqua that are going unheard." You're welcome.

I suppose John Bevilaqua is given the same amount of lattitude as other members, I have not received any member specific instructions on moderation policy.

I am not aware of him having been a member earlier, and having been banned from this forum.

If you (or any member) suspect(s) there are posts that are in violation of Forum rules, please use the report function to report such posts.

[William Kelly]

I've just used the "Report!" button (to the left bottom of each post, visible when you're logged in). It may well be that this will solve your problem of going unheard by the authorities. My message to them: "Some of the inhabitants have complaints about John Bevilaqua that are going unheard." You're welcome.

I suppose John Bevilaqua is given the same amount of lattitude as other members, I have not received any member specific instructions on moderation policy.

I am not aware of him having been a member earlier, and having been banned from this forum.

If you (or any member) suspect(s) there are posts that are in violation of Forum rules, please use the report function to report such posts.

Yea, Antii,

I never had a need to complain before about anyone on any forum in my life, but now that John Bevilaqua has made up bizarre quotes and attributed them to me (three times), has accused me falsely of bizarre attributes like wearing a tie, working as an Atlantic City casino dealer "attacking him for the past 15 years" when I've only met him once for 15 minutes and never thought of him again until now; and apparently he is actively trying to identify my employer so he can try to have me fired/and/or arrested for a perceived slight, and has previously physically assaulted an associate of mine, I think that I might be in danger and request intervention.

As John Simkin said previously: "I agree that John Bevilaqua’s posts have become increasing unpleasant. This happened last time he was an active member. However, as far as I know, no one has complained to the moderators about his behaviour until now. I would definitely vote for him being placed on moderation."

So he is a repeat offender who will not stop.

Well it has certainly become more than increasingly unpleasant for me that this paranoid, skidso, delusional maniac is permitted to do these things on what should be an educaitonal forum.

Bill Kelly

[Denis Pointing]

I suppose John Bevilaqua is given the same amount of lattitude as other members, I have not received any member specific instructions on moderation policy.

I am not aware of him having been a member earlier, and having been banned from this forum.

If you (or any member) suspect(s) there are posts that are in violation of Forum rules, please use the report function to report such posts.

But whats the point Antti? I sent a report about a week ago complaining of Belviaqua which you yourself answered, you said you were sympathetic and even hinted at agreement. But made it clear that no action was going to be taken. Your "advice" was to "use the ignore button". I have a PM from a moderator (who will not be named) that says Belviaqua is under the protection of John Simkin.

Was that moderator "mistaken" or is it true?

[John Dolva]

IMO John B is right as far as the direction he's looking. I agree he posts somewhat rabid posts and like many here has a confrontational style. The Civil Rights perspective of his posts are spot on IMO, Some he's presenting is not to peoples liking? Fine, I wouldn't expect it to be. The truth seldom is, particularly when mixed up with seemingly obsessive tangents. But to use this section to try to control the forum, threaten legal actions and limit the forum to those who toe the line of those who "know who killed Kennedy and why" according to those who "know who killed Kennedy and why" is just plain disgusting. And this from people who profess an adherence to free speech and a love of truth?

Bah.

There.

Go on. Use the complaints button.

F....n morons.

[John Bevilaqua]

IMO John B is right as far as the direction he's looking. I agree he posts somewhat rabid posts and like many here has a confrontational style. The Civil Rights perspective of his posts are spot on IMO, Some he's presenting is not to peoples liking? Fine, I wouldn't expect it to be. The truth seldom is, particularly when mixed up with seemingly obsessive tangents. But to use this section to try to control the forum, threaten legal actions and limit the forum to those who toe the line of those who "know who killed Kennedy and why" according to those who "know who killed Kennedy and why" is just plain disgusting. And this from people who profess an adherence to free speech and a love of truth?

Bah.

There.

Go on. Use the complaints button.

F....n morons.

Thank you John for your supportive comments. The concept of using coercion, strength of numbers, the equivalent of book burning, idea crushing and even illegal threats of violence and retribution: "You have more to fear from James Hosty and Me than you do from Frank Sturgis" went out with McCarthyism and the Nazi Storm Troopers and the book burners from The John Birch Society. You can even go to Controls and "Ignore Poster" if you wish. This use of McCarthyite methodologies and Storm Trooper tactics harkens back to primitive days gone by generations ago. If you "know who killed Kennedy and why" then why don't you just prove it, then tell us all and end all the suspense? And maybe, just maybe you should consider the possibility that you fell for the subtle tactics of the "real perps" the McCarthyites, the MacArthurites, the Christian Defense League, The Pioneer Fund and the John Birchers and have been hoodwinked for 45 years. It is a difficult thing for you to face the fact that Richard Condon solved it 50 years ago and you are still floundering. Get over it! Get on with it!

These groups had representation from the far right wing of ALL the alphabet agencies, so the chances that you got one right is pretty darn good. Congratulations.

[John Dolva]

You're most welcome, (as is William and everyone else), John.

Well in a sense I've been studying this as a person through numerous societies most of my life. I grew up in Sweden under Olaf Palme and from sweden we watched the US, and once Tom, through my seeming to look in that sort of direction, brought me to the MSC archives and I spent days on end reading documents, putting together the Draper stuff not knowing someone alse was/had doing/done it and in the process discovered an america that people seem so reluctant to acknowledge. Take the search for the mississippi three for example. In the process they found quite a number of bodies and body parts of others. Then Oxford and Walker, and a nudge here and there led me to the southern intelligence network, persons such as Birdsong, a hazy look at the much more secretive Alabama in terms of armament procurement and the KKK. There were areas where young people are described as responding ti JFK's death with 'he is not our president'. The incredible number of shots that kill by white on black where the coroner conspired and made out a death certificate that said death by heart attack, Durham and on and on and on. The place was in uproar. Oxford was not nothing. and so on...

What I don't agree with is the idea that I use the ignore button.

I dont know who killed Kennedy. I want to hear all sides. But the more I look at it the more I see a definite denial process that may very well be hampering the overall progress. I think the answer is in there somewhere.

[John Bevilaqua]

You're most welcome, (as is William and everyone else), John.

Well in a sense I've been studying this as a person through numerous societies most of my life. I grew up in Sweden under Olaf Palme and from sweden we watched the US, and once Tom, through my seeming to look in that sort of direction, brought me to the MSC archives and I spent days on end reading documents, putting together the Draper stuff not knowing someone alse was/had doing/done it and in the process discovered an america that people seem so reluctant to acknowledge. Take the search for the mississippi three for example. In the process they found quite a number of bodies and body parts of others. Then Oxford and Walker, and a nudge here and there led me to the southern intelligence network, persons such as Birdsong, a hazy look at the much more secretive Alabama in terms of armament procurement and the KKK. There were areas where young people are described as responding ti JFK's death with 'he is not our president'. The incredible number of shots that kill by white on black where the coroner conspired and made out a death certificate that said death by heart attack, Durham and on and on and on. The place was in uproar. Oxford was not nothing. and so on...

What I don't agree with is the idea that I use the ignore button.

I dont know who killed Kennedy. I want to hear all sides. But the more I look at it the more I see a definite denial process that may very well be hampering the overall progress. I think the answer is in there somewhere.

Did you actually go to the MSC archives or is there an on-line resource available somewhere?

Have you looked at the dates of the Draper cash flows to the MSC and the subsequent or concomitant Civil Rights Acts of Violence yet?

Tom is Tom Scully or who?

People just continue to marginalize folks like GLK Smith, Vonsiatsky and Draper because they just can not comprehend the level of vitriole,

hatred and violence which can be summoned by these demons from Hell. Their associates talk about putting bullets in the heads of communist schoolteachers, and Vonsiatsky sticks ice picks into victims thighs to make them talk, uses brass knuckles on unfriendly reporters who wrote things that he disagrees with or makes him look bad, and machine guns unarmed Bolsheviks for their political views. Draper sends innocent people to the electric chair, orchestrates character assassination campaigns against Alger Hiss and others, and pays to have Evers, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner the Birmingham choir girls, then MLK and JFK murdered. Sound like a lot of people here not only use those Morris and McCarthy tactics, but would like to try and use Vonsiatsky and Draper tactics as well. Point well taken and well made. And then some here try to call them "marginal or peripheral figures with ever-shrinking influence and power?" Dream on. Dream on my friends. It was for these very reasons that Draper and GLK Smith jumped on board the JFK lottery bandwagon. They were both almost dead broke, aging rapidly and feeling impotent and powerless because their lifelong major goals and projects were considered a dismal failure in their minds. Some other people could probably empathize with that feeling as well, right?

[John Bevilaqua]

I agree with Bill that John become increasing unpleasant. This happened last time he was an active member. However, as far as I know, no one has complained to the moderators about his behaviour until now. I would think there is a good case for him being placed on moderation.

Well I for one complained to the moderators just a week ago, the complaint being that many of Bevilaqua\'s posts have very little, if indeed any, real relevance to the assassination or case. It was made crystal clear that whilst the moderator was sympathetic and even hinted at agreement no action was going to be taken, frankly I was confused as the complaint was a legitimate one, until I was informed by a mod (who under no circumstances will be named) that the moderators had been instructed, by yourself (John Simkin) to "allow Bevilaqua a great deal of latitude". Any comment Mr Simkin? Is it true that because of personal friendship, political affiliation or whatever reason Bevilaqua's posts are not bound by the rules of this forum? Perhaps you feel Bevilaqua is a more importaint (sic) member than the rest of us plebs (sic)? Or perhaps he pulls more "hits"? This is your forum Mr Simkin, you own it, so if this is the case no one, least of all me, can deny you have the right. (Bet you would if you could, though) But I feel it would be a great shame if the ED forum went the same way as the Rich Dellarosa site where favoritism and protection is the norm. I sincerly hope I've not breached any forum rules with these rather awkward questions, I'm more than aware that I dont carry any special privileges here...the question is can the same be said for Bevilaqua ?

I sincerly (sic) hope I've not breached any forum rules with these rather awkward questions,

Breached forum rules? You have GOT to be kidding. You have breached the very rules of humanity, of common decency and of the very principles of The First Amendment itself. And you are concerned with forum rules? What a joke! How about the rules of fair play, of leveling the playing field, or the rules of the drive-by gang bangers who just resort to playing "Grafitti Tagger" when they happen to disagree with a certain posting or a certain poster? Amazing!

Dennis, what makes YOU, of all people, the official arbitrator of relevance to the JFK hit? LOL. And what makes you think that relevance or cogency has anything to do with my First Amendment rights, and yours I would expect as well, to speak my mind at any time and on any subject on or off topic regarding the JFK Assassination or on anything else for that matter? If relevance or cogency was truly a deciding criterion and if I really had the pull with John Simkin as you claimed, then I would exercise my McCarthyite and Morrisite "rights" to purge, delete or mark-up about 60% of the minutiae and anti-Democracy hyper-babble posted on all the JFK sites. Thankfully, that will never happen. Do you like to burn books, too? And stifle free speech as well. Welcome to what George Orwell predicted in his book: "1984". If you knew how preposterous those statement makes you look, you would never have made them and posted them to perpetuity. You would make Hitler and Stalin proud, and Robert J. Morris and McCarthy and even The Coudert Brothers. You are an object lesson for all the world to view and to learn from as of now. And it does not paint a very pretty picture, does it?

Anyone espousing such antiquated and repressive dogma should be ashamed of themselves in my honest opinion.

Do you even know what the First Amendment stands for and how many people died protecting it from McCarthy, Morris, Hitler, Stalin and others?

Apparently not. Your statements and sentiments are apparently shared by dozens on this forum and that is truly despicable, outrageous and quite nauseating, too. Go read \"1984\", dude, and learn what McCarthyism is all about, too and McCarranism and Coudertism and read about Samuel Vauclain who might actually be one of your heroes when he said: \"The hell with the U.S. Constitution. Around here we go by my Constitution. They are in jail now, right? Now go and get them out of jail if you can.\"

\"Have you no shame? At long last, have you no sense of shame?\"

\"Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator (McCarthy). You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?\"

1941-1963

June 9, 1954

\"Have You No Sense of Decency?\"

Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph R. McCarthy rocketed to public attention in 1950 with his allegations that hundreds of Communists had infiltrated the State Department and other federal agencies. These charges struck a particularly responsive note at a time of deepening national anxiety about the spread of world communism.

McCarthy relentlessly continued his anticommunist campaign into 1953, when he gained a new platform as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He quickly put his imprint on that subcommittee, shifting its focus from investigating fraud and waste in the executive branch to hunting for Communists. He conducted scores of hearings, calling hundreds of witnesses in both public and closed sessions.

A dispute over his hiring of staff without consulting other committee members prompted the panel\'s three Democrats to resign in mid 1953. Republican senators also stopped attending, in part because so many of the hearings were called on short notice or held away from the nation\'s capital. As a result, McCarthy and his chief counsel Roy Cohn largely ran the show by themselves, relentlessly grilling and insulting witnesses. Harvard law dean Ervin Griswold described McCarthy\'s role as \"judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one.\"

In the spring of 1954, McCarthy picked a fight with the U.S. Army, charging lax security at a top-secret army facility. The army responded that the senator had sought preferential treatment for a recently drafted subcommittee aide. Amidst this controversy, McCarthy temporarily stepped down as chairman for the duration of the three-month nationally televised spectacle known to history as the Army-McCarthy hearings.

The army hired Boston lawyer Joseph Welch to make its case. At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch\'s attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. As an amazed television audience looked on, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy\'s career: \"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.\" When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, \"Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?\"

Overnight, McCarthy\'s immense national popularity evaporated. Censured by his Senate colleagues, ostracized by his party, and ignored by the press, McCarthy died three years later, 48 years old and a broken man.

Related Links:

U.S. Congress. Senate. Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations (McCarthy Hearings 1953-54), edited by Donald A. Rtichie and Elizabeth Bolling. Washington: GPO, 2003. S. Prt. 107-84. Available online.

Reference Items:

Oshinsky, David M. A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joseph McCarthy. New York: Macmillan, 1983.

Griffith, Robert. The Politics of Fear: Joseph McCarthy and the Senate. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1970.

Edited May 26, 2009 by John Bevilaqua