Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jack Thompson

2009-10-08T23:38:32Z

MarcusG:

'''John Bruce "Jack" Thompson''' is a Florida ex-attorney famous in the media for attacking video games, among other forms of media, as responsible for inciting violence among children. Thompson is known for using personal attacks and inflammatory tactics, rather than hard data, to support his cause. He resides in Coral Gables, [[Florida]]. Thompson is a [[Presbyterian]] and politically [[conservative]].<ref>Eugene F. Provenzo Jr., Jack Thompson. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1019/p09s01-coop.html A political odd couple's advice on finding common ground]. October 19, 2004 (accessed July 13, 2007), ''Christian Science Monitor''</ref>

Thompson is particularly well-known among the video game industry for his controversial "A Modest Video Game Proposal", where Jack wrote a letter to leaders of the video game industry; Jack stated that he would donate $10,000 to a charity of Paul Eibeler's (CEO of Take-Two Interactive) choosing, if any video game-creating entity would create and publish a video game based on his criteria; He wanted the main character of the game (a father whose son was killed by a boy who played violent video games) to kill several high-ranking video game industry executives at the [[Electronic Entertainment Expo]] (E3).<ref>Saunderson, Matt. [http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5883 Attorney Proposes Violent Game]. October 10, 2005 (accessed July 13, 2007), ''Gamecube Advanced Media Network''</ref> The game was soon released (titled ''I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator''), though Thompson claimed his letter was satirical, and has not yet donated the promised $10,000. Mike Kralhulik and Jerry Holkins of the [[Penny Arcade]] webcomic, avid critics of Thompson and his methods, later donated a $10,000 check to the [[Entertainment Software Association|ESA]], in Jack Thompson's name, believing that the [[Entertainment Software Association|ESA]] would have been Eibler's charity of choice. Thompson responded by attempting to file legal charges against Kralhulik and Holkins for harrasment after Thompson had received death threats from people claiming inspiration by Kralhulik and Holkins, despite the fact that neither creator advocated or currently advocate violence against Thompson.<ref>http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17</ref> <ref>http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2005/11/69404</ref>

As of October 27, Thompson is permanently disbarred for misconduct. <ref>http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred</ref> This is a result from constant media ridicule brought on about by the Liberal video game companies as a way to discredit Jack and to get him to stop promoting the truth regarding video games.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:law]]

Wisdom tree

2009-10-08T23:35:50Z

MarcusG: Created page with 'Wisdom Tree is a Tucson, Arizona manufacturer and distributor of Video Games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Unlike the majority of senselessly violent video games, Wisdo...'

Wisdom Tree is a Tucson, Arizona manufacturer and distributor of Video Games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Unlike the majority of senselessly violent video games, Wisdom Tree creates games filled with religious content to teach children about Christianity. Wisdom Tree video games are often sold at Christian Bookstores, and consist of "Exodus", "Bible Adventures", and "Noah's Ark", just to name a few.

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-08T23:30:53Z

MarcusG: /* Liberal Rants Against Project */

==Liberal Rants Against Project==

Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project. And saying this does not make me a "liberal" or a "vandal", it makes me a Christian and someone objective enough to see phonies like the people on here for what you are. Usurpers and false Christians.
[[User:GregHarris|GregHarris]] 12:23, 7 October 2009(EDT)

:Greg, many now-established Bible translations throughout history have met similar opposition. No one here is trying to "insert a political agenda" - the objective is to clarify (not obscure or distort) the intended meaning, compensating for words that have shifted and making full use of new terms that have become available. If you think that there are flaws in our efforts, about which we remain humble, please point them out and suggest improvements.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:25, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Here is a partial list of the translators considered liberal by this project:

* Dr. Boyce Blackwelder. Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana.
* Dr. E. M. Blaiklock. Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Auckland, Titirangi, Auckland, New Zealand.
* Dr. James L. Boyer. Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary Winona Lake, Indiana.
* Dr. John A. Burns. Academic Dean, Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville, Florida.
* William J. Cameron. Principal Emeritus, Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh, Scotland.
* Dr. A. Glenn Campbell. Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Greek, and Theology, Montana Institute of the Bible, Ottawa, Kansas.
* Dr. Gary C. Cohen. Lecturer, Miami Christian College, Miami, Florida.
* Dr. Huber L. Drumwright. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
* Dr. William K. Eichhorst. President of Academic Affairs, Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.
* Dr. Virtus E. Gideon. Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
* Dr. Robert L. Hendren. Minister, Donelson Church of Christ, Nashville, Tennessee.
* Dr. Robert G. Hoerber. Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
* Dr. Ronald Jones. Associate Professor, Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, Norfolk, Virginia.
* Dr. Charles R. Smith. Professor of Christian Theology and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Does this site have any "translators" who have degrees from "seminaries" that aren't unaccredited bible colleges? No please, before I get a snarky reply, Union Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Drew Divinity are serious, accredited seminaries. Miami Christian College is not. The Montana Institute of the Bible does not exactly have an international reputation for cutting-edge biblical scholarship. And before I get the second snarky reply, I teach at a private Baptist university that takes academic rigor and scholarship seriously. Seriously enough to where no one here would attempt to "translate" the KJV. Either work with the original Greek and Hebrew or don't waste time with this.

: We welcome the "experts" from the liberal schools you list. We welcome your contributions. But I'm not hopeful. The reality is that the biggest source of translation error is political bias, and you're probably as liberal as your fellow teachers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

* Dr. John A. Sproule. Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.
* Dr. Harry A. Sturz. Professor Emeritus of Greek, Biola College, La Mirada, California.
* Dr. Joseph S. Wang. Professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.
* Dr. Phillip R. Williams. Registrar, Professor of New Testament, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, Washington.
* Dr. A. Skevington Wood. Principal, Cliff College, Calver, Sheffield, England.
* Dr. Arthur L. Farstad. New Testament Editor, Dallas, Texas.
* Dr. Lewis A. Foster. Professor of New Testament, Cincinnati Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.

:: I bet over 80% of the above list vote for [[Obama]] for President. That's their right, but let's not pretend they don't have liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Sir, you have born false witness against your neighbor! Concordia Seminary and its faculty are most assuredly NOT liberal! What's more, I take exception to your whole notion of a "liberal" Bible. I know both Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, and can tell you that the ESV is a very accurate translation. If you stand accused by Scripture, you are wrong! Period. End of story. You should not commit the sin of eisegesis in order to further your goals. That is, unless you're just pulling a fast one on all of us... [[User:VoxLutheri|VoxLutheri]] 20:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::: Then it's a very good thing he didn't, isn't it? He said 80%, not 100%. What is more, if you actually READ the page instead of jumping into the talk page to sling accusations, you'd know exactly what issues we take with the ESV and other translations. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to this project, try to stay open-minded. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
No, that is exactly what you are doing. I'm a proud Christian Conservative, but this is ridiculous. Replacing "rich" with "miserly"? "Kill" with "murder"? How you switch God's words like this? You don't know he meant miserly over rich. And replacing "liberal" with "generous" just because you don't want to mention them? Again, I think they're as stupid as anyone, but it's obvious your just promoting your own political agenda at the cost of God's word. How can you call yourselves Christians and partake in this blasphemy. [[User:Darmientie|Darmientie]] 17:27, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:Darmientie, you complain like a liberal and yet claim to be a "proud Christian Conservative." Guess what: conservatives don't capitalize the "C" in "conservative".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sick of being accused of blasphemy, so let me re-iterate: we aren't CHANGING the bible. What you've read are translations; this is simply another one. We are attempting to give the best possible meanings for the words used in the originals; a CONSEQUENCE of this is that the translation we produce is Conservative, because the BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE. The original Greek doesn't call a child "it," the original texts don't have the adulteress story. By fixing these translating errors, we produce a Bible which is both accurate and conservative. Got it? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:36, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: But if you decide what to leave out and what to change, then you let your own personal biases, whether conscious of doing so or not, to decide what to change what to what. Only God is fully unbiased. That is my only worry about this. [[User:MarcusG|MarcusG]] 19:30, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm not reading translations, sir, I am reading Greek. In Greek, "paidion," or "child" is neuter. In other words, the Bible, God's Holy Word in its original form, does call a child "it." You have no knowledge of the scriptures, or the power therein! You are an eisegete, and a heretic, and you ought to keep your mouth shut on matters of which you have no knowledge![[User:VoxLutheri|VoxLutheri]] 20:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.

:You're not confused and you know it. This has nothing to do with "harmonizing" the Bible with conservative "doctrine." The project is explained quite clearly on the page, and on this talk page. The fact that you call conservative reasoning and logic "doctrine" just demonstrates that you don't understand conservatism and don't understand what we're trying to do here. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:: How do you know what Paul meant? Have you read the epistle in the original Greek? This is an incredibly hubristic statement to make: "That can't be what Paul meant." You have no idea, and if you don't approach this project with the appropriate amount of humility (asking "What did Paul mean?" rather than "That can't be what Paul meant") your project will fail. --[[User:Prenvolost|Prenvolost]] 16:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project? --[[User:JF1971|JF1971]] 00:48, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

: Safeguards are rules, not people. The rules are clear: don't emasculate Christianity, don't dumb down the Bible, don't pretend Hell doesn't exist, accept the full logic of the Bible and use the powerful new words that come into the English language. The process is not complicated, once liberal bias is rejected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: Let's also please consider at least the chapter in its entirety when attempting to criticize the project. The verse prior to the one you reference, Revelation 22:18, gives consequences for adding to the "words of the book". I find it especially interesting that you use quotation marks when referring to the "words of the book"... perhaps you're aware that most translations phrase these two verses in such a way that it's very clear the book referenced is the book of revelations, not the bible as a whole? While I agree with the need for caution, and am actually somewhat affronted by the hubris of this project (or any translation of the bible, period), I dislike it when the bible is misquoted as a scare tactic. [[User:Downkey|Downkey]]

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible ''translation'' at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, it's more than that. We consult the Greek sometimes and benefit from other guidelines in [[Conservative Bible Project]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Sometimes. Wow! Impressive! [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Language is never 100% precise. Sometimes it is obvious what was meant, despite the inartful articulation provided by the best terminology available. Mark 6:22 has an example of this, and we improved on the Greek word for "girl". See [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:31, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::::The trouble with that example is, we already ''know'' what "κορασιων" means — it means "little girl", the diminutive of the bog-standard Greek word for girl, κοραι. And we know that because people used it on funerary inscriptions (among others) to describe their dead daughters, who they (presumably) didn't want to call temptresses. Ancient Greek had a rich, complex vocabulary, including a complete vocabulary of sexual terms — they had words for temptress, slut, prostitute, dancer, etc. The author of the Gospel of Mark chose to use the word that unequivocally means "little girl" instead of one of the many less savory words he had available, and yet you think you know better what he ''meant'' to say? That's not creating an unbiased translation — that's shoehorning your own belief structure into the Bible. Does that honor God? --[[User:Jere7my|Jere7my]] 20:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Fine, κορασιων means "little girl," but that obviously does not fit the context of the story. What is missing from your analysis is that Mark himself was a young boy at the time also. The underlying event was almost certainly a provocative dance by a young woman, and the best translation should reflect the obvious truth. Fisherman Mark may not have been familiar with the "rich, complex" Greek vocabulary to which you allude, and we're not about to change the Greek term Mark used. But let the finest English be used to convey the likely meaning accurately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Obvious? Seems to me you're injecting the meanings ''you'' want based on ''your'' ideas about what the text ''should'' say. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 10:13, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: I have an open mind about this. There is a different between "original intent," which is what we've suggested, and "textualism", which seems to be what you want (or you may simply be criticizing this project for political reasons). I tend to think "original intent" is a better approach, but welcome other comments and suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:26, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::How is "original intent" determined? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 10:58, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::: The same way as with anything else: looking at the text in context and as informed by the thinking of the authors. Most people interpret the Constitution the same way. This is particularly important when powerful new concepts go beyond the abilities of the existing language.

::::::: 99% of the time the text itself is clear and definitive, but intent matters for that other 1%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Outside of the text itself, what evidence do we have of “the thinking of the authors”? One huge difference between biblical and constitutional hermeneutics is that we know who the authors of the Constitution were and we can consult their other writings for guidance in determining their intentions. And are you suggesting that the Bible’s authors had “powerful new concepts” that they were unable to express in their languages? How can we know what those concepts were if the long-dead authors could not convey them to us? Is it even possible to have a concept that cannot be expressed in language? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:12, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:We don't need "other writings" to determine original intent. Context and logic are more useful. I gave you the specific example of this that we have already encountered: Mark 6:22, where we improved on the Greek word for "girl". You wouldn't address it.

:The bestselling Bible today, the [[NIV]], is a thought-for-thought translation that inherently relies on intent as well as text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::I don't see how your translation of the Greek of Mark 6:22 is an improvement. The case for that has not been convincingly made. Thought-for-thought translation is not equivalent to a hermeneutic objective of recovering original intent. And you have not addressed most of my questions to you. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:46, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I, also, question the need for an "improvement" in the translation of Mark 6:22. If you took the verse separately, out of context, then maybe the clarification is needed, but if you read the verse in the context it is written in, then the clarification is not needed at all. The actions of the "damsel" or "girl" show what type of person she is and her role in the story being related. I think that questioning the word usage of the original authors that God inspired to write His Word is stepping over the bounds of a faithful translation. --[[User:JF1971|JF1971]] 00:29, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

:I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this ''is'' really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

:It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation ''based on a political agenda''. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to ''remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations'', and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words|powerful new conservative insights]] that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally [[Essay:Conservapedia's_Law|superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV]]. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Just to make sure I understand- this is not a translation based on a political agenda, it just happens to be undertaken by people who recognize the "superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV". Here's my concern: as articulated in the project page, one of the source of errors in current translations can be addressed by updating the language to convey "new concepts of Christianity". My question is: from whence spring these new concepts of Christianity? What is the source? From what authority did these new concepts arise?

:::: The "new" refers to the time of Christ. The source is Christ. I'll clarify that on the project page. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: OK, let me see if I understand you --
1. The KJV has a liberal bias? How so?
2. People who cannot read Greek are going to retranslate the Bible to make something superior to the KJV
3. You are going to use "conservative language" yet there is no political motivation?
4. You cite the "conservapedia law" which is no law at all, merely wishful thinking with no evidence to back it up, as a motivating force for the project?

I think you are overreaching and that this will not end well. Still, if you are going through with it, may God guide you.

[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 20:57, 7 October 2009 (MST)

: The [[KJV]] is no longer the bestselling Bible, and as time goes by it will be used less and less. We do not criticize the KJV; indeed, we're using it as a foundation. Note that the English language is changing and some non-authentic passages did creep into the KJV.

: Increasingly liberal translations are appearing almost annually. Did you complain about those? If not, I wonder why you object to one conservative approach.

: I have studied Greek, but it's clear that the greatest translation errors are due to political bias, not lack of understanding of Greek.

: Thanks for your well-wishing conclusion. How about contributing to the project? You're welcome to learn and teach with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== CBP in blogs ==
Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Please do respond without worrying about me. I have an open mind and am learning from your responses.

:Note that liberals will sometimes make arguments they do not accept themselves in order to try to deter Christians or conservatives or others. For example, one liberal insisted here that we should shut down this site on Sundays as the Sabbath, a viewpoint he did not accept himself but perhaps thought it would disrupt us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Names of God ==

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for your insight, Joshua. I have an open mind about it. But the use of different Hebrew words does not automatically imply that different English words are the best translations.

:I'm curious, Joshua: are you drawing upon childhood knowledge for your insight? As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. Once someone buys into evolution, he typically refuses to learns anything about the Bible again, despite its undisputed role as the most influential book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Childhoold knowledge. Anyone who reads the Bible in the original Hebrew learns this as one of the first things about the text. I disagree with your claims about the Bible, "evolutionists" and "liberal blogs" but that's an argument that would be a bit off topic. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I predicted that perfectly, didn't I? Lucky guess on my part? Nope. Show me an evolutionist, and I'll show you someone who thinks of himself as well-read and yet never, ever reads the Bible. The correlation between belief in evolution and avoidance of the Bible (despite claiming to be well-read) is nearly a perfect 100%. Indeed, the correlation is so perfect that one could almost define an evolutionist as an educated person who never reads the Bible. Indeed, I'll add that to the entry here.

::: If evolution were not simply an anti-religious belief system, then that correlation would not be so high. The correlation is nowhere near that high for other scientific theories, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Not a lucky guess since again like most good little Jewish boys I started studying the text from a young age. As for not reading the Bible, I'm scheduled to give the student sermon three weeks from now at Friday night services in three weeks (the corresponding section for that week is the story of Noah) and I'm currently in the process of brushing up on the section dealing with the offerings for [[Sukkot]] (in Numbers 29) since it is thematically relevant (being the middle of the holiday). In any event, the relevant point I was trying to make was about the names. That seems to have been done. (Incidentally, if you want a good resource for looking at various versions of the Biblical texts, http://unbound.biola.edu/ is really helpful). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: Joshua, above you said you were drawing on your childhood knowledge, but now seem to imply (without saying so) that you do currently read from a few older passages in the Bible. If so, you are unlike 99% of evolutionists, who avoid the Bible like the plague and even discourage others from reading it. Indeed, the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today. No person ignorant of it (as most evolutionists are) can be considered well-read or learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Andy, what about Confucian scholars? Can they, born in a non-western society, help that they have not had the same exposure to the Bible that you have? What you mean by "well-read" and "learned" is actually a reflection on what you consider worth reading. [[User:4m4z1ng|4m4z1ng]] 10:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Mr Schlafly, you asserted that, "the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today". With all due respect for your own personal opinions, Mr. Schlafly, this is a sweeping and really unfounded generalization that I feel is detrimental to the nature of the discussion here. I personally am a devout Catholic, and yet I firmly believe in the theory of evolution. In fact, the Catholic Church has accepted the theory of Evolution as an acceptable belief, so long as the idea of God as a prime mover is incorporated. To say that being an evolutionist automatically constitutes an individual who outwardly and totally rejects not just the Bible's value in a religious sense but also in a cultural and historical sense is a truly absurd and careless assumption. Indeed, I have had a great deal of friends and professors whom I have discussed the subject with, and even the most staunch atheists have generally agreed with the idea that the Bible is one of, if not the most historically and culturally significant text ever written. The way you attempt to make individuals who disagree with your own viewpoint seem like philistines is not just ignorant in its own right, it is downright childish. When you and others make broad-stroked stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of a large group of individuals, it only serves to harm your own ethos as an individual with an opinion to share. This has the potential to be a intelligent, reasonable forum for informed discussion of the issue from all viewpoints, but such immature generalizations prevent this page from achieving this potential. I hope that in the future, we can be more civil in discussion on this page, because many individuals are making intelligent points on both sides of the argument without resorting to political pandering. -- [[User:Pnino|Pnino]] 20:24, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Pnino, you say "with all due respect," but you don't sound very respectful. You insult him, calling him childish and ignorant, and then advocate civil discussion. Feel free to take your name calling and hypocrisy elsewhere. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:49, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== I don't get the criticisms of this project ==

Where were these critics when "the Message" "translation" came out? Where were they when the NIV people announced a new, more liberal version in the works? The double-standard is obvious. A liberal version of the Bible? "Ho-hum." Conservative version? "WHAT??? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!" [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 18:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. The number one reason why most people are [[liberal]]s is so that they can cling to a [[double standard]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::These people were silent, of course, when others created a "gender-neutral" Bible, a "green" Bible, and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not). No problem with those versions. Evangelicals recently complained about the proposed TNIV, but were either ignored or ridiculed for their objections. It is, of course, because these people agree with those versions. They have no issue with people on their side of the political, social and moral spectrum creating those Bibles. People have been creating liberalized Bibles for decades, possibly even centuries, but the minute someone proposes a conservative Bible, the left blows their collective top. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 19:40, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

==Footnotes and commentary==
In deference to JoshuaZ, I suggest the use of a footnotes feature at the bottom of each article, describing certain words, their origins in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, their meanings, etc, as well as a commentary feature. This information should be specific to each chapter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Minor contention on Commandment X==
As someone with a love for the meaning and sounds of language and what it can be used for, and how good words claim the listener, I must take issue with taking Commandment X as a flat rule. I agree that empty words don't add anything, but sometimes an extra word or two can add a lot. To use an example close at hand (and even in the Commandment!), 'Lord God'. It'd get stale if it were used completely in place of ''Lord'', but (to me at least) ''Lord God'' strikes me as a form of reference suitable for powerful and important moments. The Lord (or if you prefer the other form of address, God) listens to your prayers and cares for your soul, but the Lord God is about to deliver the Word unto you, and you'd better pay attention. Also, people are more likely to put a little more formality in addressing God if it's important. It's a matter of the right tone for the right occasion, and the Bible does indeed contain a lot of occasion, and therefore deserves to be translated with befitting tone to convey its events and messages more powerfully in the mind of the reader. Sometimes a word or two makes the difference there. [[User:Acm2|Acm2]] 22:53, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

: Your point is well-taken, but it is also worth avoiding senseless repetition. Let's face it: soundbites are decreasing and conciseness is valued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Definitely avoid repetition. For the Lord/Lord God example, I'd use it when God is, well, showing people who they must listen to, or when people are beseeching/praying. Context, it all depends on context... [[User:Acm2|Acm2]] 00:04, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I'm open to your suggestions, and have already learned from them. Please feel free to translate some phrases as others have. Several of us are currently working on [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]], and we're about half finished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Should slavery be translated differently? ==

Is there another term for [[slavery]] that accurately describes what Biblical slavery was, without the pervasive racism and transatlantic slave trade?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:I don't know of another term at this point. St. Perpetua was the slave owner of St. Felicitas. There may be a deeper relationship; economic ties, survival, shelter, and family that may be able to explain slavery in that generation. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PERPETUA.HTM] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:52, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::It wasn't entirely race-based then, and there wasn't a massive slave trade. Slavery in Roman times was very different from antebellum slavery in America, which is what the word "slavery" means today.

::I'm not saying a more precise alternative is available in English, but it's an issue to consider.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree. Weren't Roman slaves prisoners of war? And weren't they free after a certain period? If both of these are true, then perhaps "indentured servant" would work. Yes, it has some connotations, but it's much less pejorative than "slavery." I'm trying to think of other words that might be good here, and coming up blank. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:05, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Roman slaves weren't necessarily prisoners of war, and many (indeed most) of them never gained freedom. As a general rule, the only slaves who gained freedom held high positions in their master's household (for example as manager of the other slaves, or as a manager of finance) and it was very uncommon, to say the least, for your average food-bringing, vase-polishing, door-opening slave to gain freedom. If they took wives then any children they had were also slaves. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::But Roman slaves did escape, I think, and perhaps frequently so. Indeed, I think [[Epistle to Philemon]] relates to an example around A.D. 60.

:::::The point is that "slavery" today means an '''institution''' of racism. That is not what the Bible is talking about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I think "slavery" in the historical American context is, broadly speaking, part-and-parcel with racism, but I don't think that slavery throughout history always meant enslaving those of a different race. My (admittedly non-expert) impression is that sometimes slaves were prisoners of war, sometimes those captured in far-off lands, sometimes children of slaves, sometimes the poor, etc. Of course it is easier to enslave someone who is perceived as inherently very different than the slave-owners. In America, the race aspect was pretty complex; for example some slaves were their masters' biological children, thus the need I suppose for the "one drop" rule. 
"Slavery" today tends to be used to refer to situations where a usually poor, usually uneducated, sometimes in-the-country-illegally person is isolated from others and forced into labor (or worse). Slaves are kept essentially captive through force, intimidation, and/or illegal immigration status. Sometimes the law sides with the slave and prosecutes the slaveholder, but not always. Race is less likely to be a factor, though nationality is. 
The term "prisoner of war" today involves widely-accepted rules as to how prisoners are to be treated; generally speaking they are not subject to forced labor or sexually abused, thus they are not considered to be slaves. I don't know if that was the case throughout history; I think it is likely that it was not the case. 
It's difficult, isn't it?! [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], perhaps it would help if you could explain a bit more about Biblical slavery and how it differed from that of today and our country's experience in the past? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

: The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that.

: That's not the meaning intended in the Bible. Slavery was not racial, and it was not an institution. "Prisoner of war" may be closer to the Roman meaning.

: Our project seeks the original intent without political bias. Translating Roman (and pre-Roman) slavery into the appropriate English terminology that carries the same meaning is the challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::''"The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that."'' I am afraid not. The modern slave trade, while not that well established in the United States, is now so endemic in the rest of the world that today, English-speaking or not, slavery is now associated with three words: poor, dispossessed and vulnerable. Skin colour doesn't come into it as all too often today's slaves have come from areas of the world that have experienced a recent outbreak of war, lawlessness, famine or severe economic crisis. Indeed, so pernicious is the slave trade that were you to ask somebody living in the UK what slavery meant they would in all likely-hood answer East European and Russian women being illegally shipped into the UK to work as prostitutes, or male Chinese workers being illegally shipped into the country to work for gangmasters (the Chinese workers left to drown on a beach that they were combing for cockles being a good example).--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 13:17, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

:::18th and 19th century slavery was never about race; the slavers didn't think "Look! A black man! Let's enslave him!" Their logic was more along the lines of "Look! A primitive, unorganized group who can't protect themselves and can easily be dominated". To say that slavery in America was about race is a liberal lie used by those who love to play the race card and it panders towards political correctness. All slavery is about taking advantage of those who can no longer protect themselves from those who seek to exploit them. Roman slavery was no more enlightened than that in the South; indeed, it could be even harsher; if a slave murdered his master, then every slave in the household - man, woman and child - was crucified, regardless of whether or not they were complicit. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 16:19, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Rather extensive and helpful examination of slavery in the ANE as corresponds to that of our more recently memory here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 15:09, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

== Oversight? ==

This is a re-post of something I posted under the user name JF1971, before it was blocked for some reason.

----

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project?--[[User:ChrisBo|ChrisBo]] 14:46, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:ChrisBo, I understand your concern that there be a continuous reference to the Greek. Be assured that those of us who have been doing a good deal of translating have been making constant and careful references to the Greek, and consulting Greek scholarly sources to maintain accuracy.
:What you misunderstand, what many seem to misunderstand, is that we're not ADDING conservative thoughts and principles to the Bible, we're REVEALING them. The Bible is the ultimate document when it comes to conservatism, logic, reason, and morality, and we're attempting to show this better my removing the dillution of these principles that have crept in over the centuries of translations, or been introduced into once-excellent translations by the changing meanings of word. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::...by, for instance, changing one perfectly good and easily-translated word to another, less savory, one when it suits your ideology, because you know what the author of Mark "really meant". --[[User:Jere7my|Jere7my]] 21:08, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Without the chapter and verse, I have no idea what you're talking about, but "less savory" makes me believe you are talking about 6:28. Do you deny that "temptress" accurately describes her? Either contribute, or leave. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:12, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::This discussion has opened my eyes: liberals don't like the word "temptress"! Wikipedia even redirects it! The [[ESV]] does not use the English word in its translation, not even once. I'm going to add it to [[Word Analysis of Bible]]. Every day is a new revelation in this project. Actually it's a dozen new revelations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Joseph McCarthy

2009-10-08T00:56:23Z

MarcusG: /* Retrospective views on McCarthy */

[[Image:Joseph McCarthy.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy]]
'''Joe McCarthy''' (Joseph Raymond McCarthy, November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was a Republican [[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] from [[Wisconsin]] 1947 to 1957. He dominated the anti-communist movement in the U.S., 1950-54, until his career was ruined by censure by the Senate. '''"McCarthyism"''' is the aggressive exposure of Communists influences in America and the people who protect them, and [[liberal]]s will add 'with scant regard for due process'.

Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public figure to stand up to [[Communist]] infiltration of the [[United States]] government. He is now considered an American hero by many, though liberals still seek to tarnish his name.
He was noted for claiming that there were large numbers of [[Communist Party|Communists]] and [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] spies and sympathizers, engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the [[United States]], inside the federal government. He was proven correct by government documents and inquiry, including decrypted [[Venona]] files.
Ultimately, his detractors, including the [[Communist Party]], were able to organize an effective effort to having him censured by the [[United States Senate]].
The term "[[McCarthyism]]," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's attempts to expose Communists, was soon applied to similar dogmatic pursuits.

==Early life==
Joseph McCarthy was born to a poor Irish Catholic farm family in Appleton, Wisconsin. A hyperactive, extroverted youth, he dropped out of school after eighth grade to start his own poultry business. After the chickens all died, he enrolled in the local public high school. Thanks to enormous energy and a retentive mind, he finished his coursework in less than a year at age 20. After two undergraduate years at Marquette University, a leading Jesuit school in Milwaukee, McCarthy entered Marquette Law School, acquiring the rudiments of the profession that he soon used to knit together a statewide network among Irish and German Catholics. McCarthy was a practicing Catholic his entire life, but rarely referred to religion or ethnicity in his speeches. He actively supported President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in the Young Democrats, but did not join Irish organizations. Although defeated in his 1936 race for district attorney, McCarthy displayed remarkable campaign abilities and an astonishing memory for faces. He had the energy and determination to meet every voter in person, exuding charm and a concern for the voter as an individual. The same tactics paid off in 1939, when he was successful in a nonpartisan contest for a regional judgeship.

The youngest judge in state history, he worked long hours to clear up a large backlog. As one local newspaper concluded, Judge McCarthy "administered justice promptly and with a combination of legal knowledge and good sense."<ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632 ''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American, Section I. The Years Before 1950.</ref> He was still a Democrat, but that party was very weak statewide at the time.

===Military service===
[[Image:JosephMcCarthyMilitaryUniform.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Joseph McCarthy in the U.S. Marine Corps]]

In 1942 McCarthy, volunteered for the Marines (as a judge he was draft exempt), becoming an intelligence officer in an aviation unit heavily engaged in combat in the South Pacific. Although assigned a desk job McCarthy flew numerous combat missions as a tail gunner—he exaggerated the number to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross.

During his 30 months of military service, McCarthy's record was unanimously praised by his commanding officers and Admiral [[Chester Nimitz]], commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet. Admiral Nimitz issued the following citation regarding the service of Captain McCarthy:

{{Cquote|For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as an observer and rear gunner of a dive bomber attached to a Marine scout bombing squadron operating in the Solomon Islands area from September 1 to December 31, 1943. He participated in a large number of combat missions, and in addition to his regular duties, acted as aerial photographer. He obtained excellent photographs of enemy gun positions, despite intense anti-aircraft fire, thereby gaining valuable information which contributed materially to the success of subsequent strikes in the area. Although suffering from a severe leg injury, he refused to be hospitalized and continued to carry out his duties as Intelligence Officer in a highly efficient manner. His courageous devotion to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the naval service.<ref>Cohn, Roy (1968). ''McCarthy''. The New American Library, Inc., pgs. 273-274. ASIN B000KIR8FC</ref>}}

==Elected to Senate, 1946==
McCarthy had his name entered in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 1944, opposing a well-entrenched incumbent Republican, Alexander Wiley. The absentee war hero ran a strong second, making a name for himself statewide and making himself available for the 1946 Senate contest. Why McCarthy suddenly changed parties was never explained, but prospects for ambitious Wisconsin politicians were dim inside the poorly organized Democratic party, for most New Dealers supported the state’s Progressive party. During the war, however, that party collapsed, torn apart between its New Deal domestic liberalism, and its intensely isolationist opposition to Roosevelt’s foreign policy. Increasingly out of touch with Wisconsin, its leader [[Robert LaFollette Jr.]] looked to his family’s past glories and made the blunder of trying for reelection to the Senate in 1946 as a Republican. "Tail Gunner Joe," as his posters called him, endlessly crisscrossed Wisconsin while LaFollette remained in Washington, offered an alternative in the Republican primary to old guard Republicans who had opposed the Lafollettes for a half century. McCarthy brilliantly captured the frustrations citizens felt about massive strikes, unstable economy, price controls, severe shortages of housing and meat, and the growing threat of from the far left in the CIO. He nipped LaFollette in the primary. The slogan “Had Enough?—Vote Republican” gave the Republicans a landslide all across the North, electing a new junior senator from Wisconsin.

==Communist Issue==
In Washington, McCarthy was a mainstream conservative in domestic policy, and, like many veterans, was an internationalist in foreign affairs, supporting the Marshall Plan and NATO. His speeches rarely mentioned domestic Communism or flaming issues like the [[Alger Hiss]] espionage case, but that suddenly changed in early 1950 when his vivid anti-Communist rhetoric drew national attention. "The issue between the Republicans and Democrats is clearly drawn. It has been deliberately drawn by those who have been in charge of twenty years of treason.” Alleging there were many card-carrying Communists in [[Harry S. Truman]]’s State Department, McCarthy forced a Senate investigation led by Millard Tydings, Democrat of Maryland. McCarthy named numerous suspect diplomats but failed to convince the three Democrats on the panel; they concluded his allegations were “a fraud and a hoax,” while the two Republicans dissented. McCarthy retaliated by campaigning against Tydings, who was defeated for reelection in November, 1950. What the senator himself called McCarthyism was a factor in key races across the country; all his candidates won and his stock soared. A few weeks later American forces were crushed by the Chinese in Korea, and in spring 1951 Truman tried to shift the blame by firing General Douglas MacArthur.
==Catholic base==
The great majority of Catholics were anti-Communist, but they were also loyal Democrats, so to enlarge his base McCarthy, a Republican, needed an alliance with anti-Communist Catholics.<ref> Martin E. Marty, ''Modern American Religion: 1941-1960'' (1996) 3:358</ref> The Catholic bishops and the Catholic press was "among McCarthy's most fervid supporters." <ref> Charles R. Morris, ''American Catholic'' (1997) p. 248-50, quote on p. 248; James Waldron Arnold, ''Objectivity in Selected Catholic Diocesan Newspapers'' (1954) p. 49.</ref>A major connection was with the powerful Kennedy family, which had very high visibility among all Catholics in the Northeast.<ref>Kevin Kenny, ''The American Irish'' (2000), 242-43.</ref> Well before he became famous McCarthy became closely associated with [[Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.]]. He was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, and at one point dated Joe's daughter Patricia. After McCarthy became nationally prominent Kennedy was a vocal supporter, and helped build McCarthy's popularity among Catholics. Kennedy contributed cash and encouraged his friends to give money. Some historians have argued that in the Senate race of 1952, Joe Kennedy and McCarthy made a deal that McCarthy would not make campaign speeches for the Republican ticket in Massachusetts, and in return, Congressman [[John F. Kennedy]] would not give anti-McCarthy speeches. In 1953 McCarthy hired [[Robert Kennedy]] as a senior staff member. When the Senate voted to censure McCarthy in 1954, Senator Kennedy was in the hospital and never indicated then or later how he would vote; he told associates he could not vote against McCarthy because of the family ties.<ref> Michael O'Brien, ''John F. Kennedy: A Biography'' (2005); Crosby, ''God, Church, and Flag'' </ref>
==Political dominance==
McCarthy now became one of the dominant leaders in American politics, with strong support among both Republicans and Catholic Democrats, as he alleged that Truman’s top people had betrayed America. He singled out Secretary of State [[Dean Acheson]] and Secretary of Defense [[George Marshall]]. Liberals were aghast; Truman had picked General Marshall to head the State and Defense departments precisely because he thought the elderly statesman would always be above criticism, no matter that China turned from a staunch ally to a bitter enemy on his watch. McCarthy’s blistering attacks on Marshall as “part of a conspiracy so immense, an infamy so black, as to dwarf any in the history of man” fueled the belief he was a wild-man, a pathological liar who overstepped the bounds of political discourse.

With [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] crusading against “Korea, Communism and Corruption” in 1952, Republican victory was assured. As a senior member of the majority party McCarthy for the first time became a committee chairman, with control of staffing and agenda. He used his Government Operations Committee to open highly publicized hearings in 1953-54 alleging disloyalty in the State Department, the CIA, the US Information Agency, and finally the Army. His furious attacks on the Army led to the televised “Army-McCarthy” hearings in spring, 1954, which exposed his bullying tactics to a national audience. As McCarthy’s poll rating plunged, his enemies finally pulled together to introduce a censure resolution focused on McCarthy’s contempt for the federal government, and especially for his fellow senators.

McCarthy’s charges that over-educated liberals tolerated Communism at home and abroad had baffled the liberals. He alleged that they had corruptly sold out the national interest to protect their upper class privileges, and were so idealistic about world affairs that they radically underestimated the threat posed by Stalin, his spies, and the worldwide Communist movement. Instead of refuting the allegations, Liberals tried one of two approaches. Some became intensely anti-Communist and claimed they were more effective than McCarthy and the Republicans in eliminating Communism in the unions and Democratic party, and in containing the Stalinist menace in Europe. The other approach was to counterattack, to charge that “McCarthyism” never found a single spy but hurt innocent people in hunting for nonexistent witches; thus it represented an evil betrayal of American values. In an appeal to upscale conservatives and liberal intellectuals, critics ignored the Communist infiltration of labor unions and liberal causes and focused on stereotyping anticommunists as ill-mannered ignorant troglodytes, oblivious to American traditions of free speech and free association. McCarthy’s exaggerations and false charges encouraged opponents to stress the second approach, but it escalated the controversy to a pitch of hatreds and fears unprecedented since the days of reconstruction. McCarthy’s superb sense of timing and his media instincts kept his partisan attacks on the front page every day; his willingness to do battle in the hustings with Democratic opponents across the country strengthened his base in the Republican party. His religion and ethnicity, refreshed with highly visible friendships with leading Irish Catholics, especially the Kennedy family, bolstered his standing among Democrats. According to Gallup, McCarthy’s popularity crested in January 1954, when he was endorsed by all voters 50-29 (with 21 having no opinion). His core support came from Republicans and Catholics who had not attended college. McCarthy however failed to create any sort of grass roots organization. He had no organizational skills; he did not effectively use his talented staffers (such as [[Robert Kennedy]]). He was a loner who lurched from issue to issue, misled by the enormous media publicity into believing that a one-man crusade was possible in a an increasingly well-educated complex society honeycombed with local, regional and national organizations. By operating within the Republican party apparatus he lost the opportunity to create an independent grass roots political crusade in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, Huey Long, or Ross Perot. He never launched his own magazine or radio show or formed alliances with publishers who agreed with him. McCarthy’s strained relations with Senate colleagues created a trapdoor. It was sprung after many Republicans realized that he had shifted the attack away from the Democrats. What use was his slogan “20 Years of Treason” once Eisenhower was in office? McCarthy’s answer was “21 Years of Treason!” Eisenhower’s supporters could no longer tolerate such a loose cannon, and as McCarthy unwisely shifted his attacks to Eisenhower’s beloved Army, his cause was doomed. While many Americans distrusted Ivy League, striped pants diplomats, soldiers were held in high regard; McCarthy’s charges of subversion were flimsy (one Communist dentist had been automatically promoted); he sabotaged his own reputation by finagling favors for an aide who had been drafted. The televised hearings proved fatal to an ill-prepared bully. After the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 1954 the censure motion carried, 67-22. McCarthy’s appeal, so widespread yet superficial, evaporated overnight and the Senator faded into the shadows.

==McCarthyism==
McCarthy is permanently associated with "McCarthyism" -- he did not coin the term but he did use it, to mean an aggressive attack on Communists who had infiltrated America, and on the liberals who protected them, without regard for due process. Although the left was unable to make heroes of the people who supported and sometimes were controlled by Stalin, they did make heroes of opponents of McCarthy, painting him as the internal menace to American values that was far worse than Communist subversion. Schrecker (1998) sees McCarthyism t as anti-Communist political repression of the early Cold War, and explores its mechanisms through, and what she considers the exaggerated public fears on which it depended. During the 1940s-1950s, McCarthyism took on a variety of forms with an array of agendas, interested parties, and modes of operating. Despite its widespread and popular character, it started with the federal government and was driven by a network of dedicated anti-Communist crusaders such as J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism's repression both responded to and helped create widespread fears of a significant threat to national security.

[[Margaret Chase Smith]], Republican senator from Maine, gained a national reputation as one of the earliest critics McCarthyism with a Senate speech on June 1, 1950, called "the Declaration of Conscience." It was an attempt by Smith to address the excesses of McCarthyism, and was widely hailed as a call to reason by McCarthy;s opponents. Smith gave a critique of the American political process and political institutions in the responses to dissent on the left and the right. Smith, like other McCarthy critics, sought to bring a level of civility to political protest and dissent. She and many others who objected to the tactics of McCarthy actually believed in the underlying tenets of his anti-Communist crusade. Their responses to his excesses reflected a desire to narrow the scope of acceptable political dissent.<ref> Gregory Peter Gallant, "Margaret Chase Smith, McCarthyism and the Drive for Political Purification." PhD dissertation U. of Maine 1992. 302 pp. DAI 1992 53(5): 1642-A. DA9227981</ref>

===McCarthyism Impact on government===
Rausch (2000) argues McCarthy's campaign had a lasting impact on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations, particularly among professional diplomatic institutions like the State Department and its Foreign Service personnel, and McCarthyism did not disappear with the senator's censure in 1954. The "ism" in a broad sense was a set of ideas not only about internal subversion but also about the outside world, including a simplistic, isolationist anti-communism and a deep suspicion about social reform movements abroad. It stood in open opposition to a more complex, even accommodating, view of communism. Instead of ending the hunt for subversives begun under Truman, Eisenhower made the search systematic, universal, and more broadly defined. McCarthyist Scott McLeod took over security and personnel functions of the State Department and became one of the most famous and despised men in the executive branch. McLeod brought McCarthyist methods and assumptions to bear in ridding the department of what he defined as security risks. Oral history sources provide key evidence for the destructive atmosphere within the department in these years, and they shed valuable light on McLeod's impact on the foreign affairs bureaucracy. In the short term, the Foreign Service declined in morale, prestige, and influence. By 1954, professionally trained diplomacy, with nuanced, internationalist views lost ground to more simplistic, strictly anticommunist views. During Eisenhower's second term, the Foreign Service and the more moderate approach experienced a resurgence but still faced opposition from hard- liners who survived the McCarthy years. The Latin American branch of the department embodied the changes in professional diplomacy towards one region of the world. Within the division were the institutionalized tensions of the Eisenhower administration, between career diplomats and political appointees, conservative and moderate anti-communists, and trained diplomats and other specialists. The U.S. embassy in Cuba showed this internal conflict in a microcosm, as the administration's response to Latin American revolution evolved after 1954. McCarthyism accompanied Eisenhower into office, and its effects continued into his last foreign policy crisis and beyond.

In California McCarthyism began before the Senator was famous. In 1946 in the Los Angeles schools two teachers from Canoga Park High School were called before the Tenney Senate Investigating Committee on charges of communistic teaching. The two teachers were exonerated of all charges, but a campaign to rid the LA district of dissident teachers was effectively launched. The target of the campaign was a group of teachers who belonged to the Los Angeles Federation of Teachers (LAFT), formerly known as Union Local 430 and chartered under the American Federation of Teachers, until 1948, when the AFT revoked the charter. By 1954, Los Angeles teachers were required to take five loyalty oaths, although not one teacher was ever charged with or convicted of subversion. In 1953, the Los Angeles City School Board announced that 304 teachers were to be investigated because of alleged Communist affiliations. The Dilworth Oath, made law in 1953, required teachers to answer questions posed to them by the Investigating Committees. Teachers who refused to answer the Committee questions by claiming their Fifth Amendment rights could then be fired by the Board for insubordination.<ref> Ellen Chase Verdries, "Teaching with the Enemy: An Archival and Narrative Analysis of McCarthyism in the Public Schools." PhD dissertation Claremont Grad. School 1996. 286 pp. DAI 1997 57(9): 3853-A. DA9703815</ref>

==Media and popular culture==
Historians have debated the degree to which McCarthyism permeated the American mood and popular culture. Anti-Communist liberals at the time said it played to isolationism (especially strong in McCarthy's Wisconsin) by diverting attention away from the real threat, Stalin's Soviet Union as an external power. The Left said that they had a First Amendment right to their beliefs and that McCarthyism had a chilling effect. Dussere (2003) shows that comic strip artist Walt Kelly in "Pogo" parodied McCarthyism and promoted leftist politics as old-fashioned American common sense, representing a time when concerns about art and politics with respect to popular culture were in the forefront.

Hoover's FBI targeted retired film comedian [[Charlie Chaplin]] because of his status as a cultural icon and as part of its broader investigation of Hollywood. Some of Chaplin's films were considered "Communist propaganda," but because Chaplin was a British citizen and was not a member of the Communist Party, he was not among those investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. Nevertheless, he was vulnerable to protests by the American Legion and other patriotic groups because of both his sexual and political unorthodoxy. Although countersubversives succeeded in driving Chaplin out of the U.S., they failed to build a consensus that Chaplin was a threat to the nation. Chaplin's story testifies to both the power of the countersubversive campaign at mid-century and to some of its limitations.<ref> Sbardellati and Shaw (2003)</ref>

Strout (1999) looks at ''The Christian Science Monitor'' during the McCarthy era (1950-1954); it was a highly influential newspaper at home and abroad. Strout asks: (1) Was the ''Monitor'' a consistent critic of McCarthy? (2) How did the coverage compare to other elite and popular press newspapers? (3) How did the pressures associated with McCarthyism effect individuals at the ''Monitor'' and its news product? An extensive review of editorials and news articles suggests that it was thorough and fair in reporting, yet outspoken and responsible in editorial criticism. [[Mary Baker Eddy]]'s original 1907 statement that, "The purpose of the Monitor is to injure no man, but to bless all mankind," was referred to repeatedly in interoffice correspondence during the McCarthy era. The ''Monitor'' did not attack McCarthy personally as other paper's did, rather, its criticism centered on the actions of the senator and the negative effects they were having at home and abroad. The ''Monitor''served as a voice of moderation, yet at the same time, remained a persistent critic of McCarthy's tactics. Individuals were affected by the pressures of McCarthyism. For instance, veteran Washington correspondent Richard L. Strout was suspended from covering McCarthy for eight to 12 months after being mentioned in McCarthy's book, ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America.''

==''I have in my hand...''==
[[Image:FBI-Chart-Web.png|right|450px|thumb|FBI Master Chart of distribution in 1945-46 of investigative reports to the White House, Attorney General, and employing agencies of Communist agents in the Federal government.]]
It was McCarthy's charges of Communist, security, and loyalty risk infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence in 1950. On February 9th speech in Wheeling, West Virginia at the Colonnade Room of the McClure Hotel he stated:

{{Cquote|I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.'' <ref>McCarthy, Joseph (February 9, 1950) "[http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/mccarthy_wheeling.pdf Speech at Wheeling], West Virginia, 9 February 1950," in Michael P. Johnson, ed., Reading the American Past, Vol. II (Boston: Bedford Books, 1998), pgs. 191-195.</ref><ref>Vernon, Wes (January 13, 2006). [http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A4297_0_4_0_C/|''AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy'']. Accuracy In Media</ref><ref>Irvine, Reed and Kincaid, Cliff (September 13, 2000). [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2958_0_2_0_C/|''Joe McCarthy, a Victimizer or Victim'']. Accuracy In Media</ref><ref>Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning''. Regnery Publishing Inc., pgs. 41-61. ISBN 0-89526-472-2.</ref>}}

McCarthy compiled a list of 57 security risks and publicly named John S. Service, Gustavo Duran, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], Harlow Shapley, and [[H. Julian Wadleigh]] <ref>Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.</ref> as being on the list. <ref>Reeves, Thomas C. (1997). ''The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography''. Madison Books. pgs. 222-238. ISBN 1-56833-101-0.</ref> These names came from the "Lee List" of unresolved State Department security cases compiled by the earlier investigators for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950). </ref>

In a six hour speech on the Senate floor on February 20, 1950 in which McCarthy was constantly interrupted by hostile senators; four of whom -- Scott Lucas (61 times), Brien McMahon (27 times), Garrett Withers (22 times), and Herbert Lehman (13 times) -- interrupted him a total of 123 times, McCarthy raised the issue of some eighty individuals who had worked in the [[State Department]], or wartime agencies such as the [[Office of War Information]] (OWI) and the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] (BEW). Democrats insisted McCarthy name names. McCarthy responded,

{{Cquote|The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals. . . .I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists: I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee - and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health. . . .}}

McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." <ref>Washington Post (February 12, 1950).''Washington Post, February 12, 1950; McCarthy's speech in Wheeling & letter to President Truman are cited in the article titled "Security Risks" to the lower left of the photo''. Washington Post[http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/4/49/Washpost1950.jpg/250px-Washpost1950.jpg]</ref> This alleged statement was made only about his speech in Wheeling, WV and not in the other cities where he made a speech addressing the issue of subversion in government. The 205 number came in another part of his speech. On February 20, 1950, in a speech made on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy officially clarified the issue:

{{Cquote|I have before me a letter which was reproduced in the Congressional Record on August 1, 1946, at page A4892. It is a letter from James F. Byrnes, former Secretary of State. It deals with the screening of the first group, of about 3,000. There were a great number of subsequent screenings. This was the beginning.

The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President--and I think wisely so--set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agencies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters in some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes in his letter, which is reproduced in the Congressional Record, says this:

''Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of state from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.''

In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are unsafe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this group of 205, and some are from subsequent groups which have been screened but not discharged.
I might say in that connection that the investigative agency of the State Department has done an excellent job. The files show that they went into great detail in labeling Communists as such. The only trouble is that after the investigative agency had properly labeled these men as Communists the State Department refused to discharge them. I shall give detailed cases.<ref>{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}</ref>}}

McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic Party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.

McCarthy's support and popularity peaked in early 1954 when a January 1954 Gallup Poll showed that 50 percent of the respondents had a generally "favorable opinion" of him. McCarthy was also fourth on the list of the "most admired men".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Kazin, Michael
| year = 1998
| title = ''The Populist Persuasion: An American History''
| publisher = Cornell University Press
| page = 342
| id = ISBN 0-801-48558-4}}</ref>
On March 9, 1954, CBS broadcasted [[Edward R. Murrow]]'s ''See It Now'' TV documentary attacking McCarthy.

===VENONA files===

In 1995, when the VENONA transcripts were declassified, further detailed information was revealed about Soviet espionage in the United States. FBI Director [[J. Edgar Hoover]] was among only a handful of people in the U.S. Government who was aware of the Venona project, and there is no indication whatsoever Hoover shared Venona information with McCarthy. In fact, Hoover may have actually fed McCarthy [[disinformation]], or dead end files, in an effort to put pressure on relatives, friends, or close associates of real Venona suspects by threatening to reveal embarrassing information about them in a public forum if they failed to cooperate and reveal what they might have known about someone's else’s activities and associations. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 150, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster150.pdf pgs. 50-64] pdf. Excerpts from memorandum by FBI agent Edward Morgan asserting that there was no possible legal case against the Bentley suspects and that investigation should be discontinued, with possible exception of trying to get one of the weaker suspects to break. </ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 93, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster093.pdf pgs. 166 - 170] pdf. Original Edward Morgan memo 1/14/47, "The only reasonable hope of salvaging a successful prosecution is (a) to endeavor to make an informant of one of the subjects and/or (b) interview the subjects in the hope that at least one will break...Failing to successfully develop one of the subjects as an informant, I doubt if any more can be accomplished of probative value through further investigation...This case will stand or fall dependent upon the extent to which the subjects may break and in breaking corroborate [Elizabeth Bentley]. I personally am of the opinion that the Bureau would be derelict in its responsibility in this instance if the various subjects were not thoroughly and exhaustively interviewed. The odds are not too good that such interviews would terminate successfully; however, it is quite possible that some lesser lights among the subjects would crack during the course of a careful and pointed interview....one of the subjects, probably the weakest sister, be contacted with a view to making him an informant. This is an outside chance but offers the only reasonable prospect of making a case with respect to contemporaneous and future events. Failing in this respect, that immediately the other subjects be exhaustively interviewed. Since an interview with one would virtually amount to putting all of them on notice, it would seem logical to conduct such interviews as nearly simultaneously as possible....That failing to break any of the subjects, serious consideration be given to exposing this lousy outfit and at least hounding them from Federal service. Several possibilities exist in this regard but this would seem to be a bridge to cross when we get to it."</ref> And there is no indication McCarthy might have known he was being used by Hoover in this way.

On February 7, 1950, three days before McCarthy's acclaimed Wheeling West Virginia speech, Hoover testified before House Appropriations Committee that [[Glossary_of_espionage_terms#Counterintelligence|counterespionage]] requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases. It is more important to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective." <ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence], John F. Fox, Jr., FBI Historian, Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005. </ref>

McCarthy is said to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has come to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure of 205 appears to have come from an oral briefing McCarthy had with Hoover regarding espionage suspects the FBI was then investigating. The FBI had discovered on its own five Soviet agents operating in the United States during World War II; defector Elizabeth Bentley further added another 81 known identities of espionage agents; Venona materials had provided the balance, and by the time a full accounting of true name identities was compiled in an FBI memo in 1957, one more subject had been added to the number, now totaling 206. <ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FBI_Synopsis_on_%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York,_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Referencing 206 Communists in Government]</ref>

Much confusion has always surrounded the subject. While the closely guarded FBI/Venona information of identified espionage agents uses the number of 206, McCarthy in his Wheeling speech only referred to Communist Party membership and other security risks, and not espionage activity. Being a security risk as a CPUSA member does not necessarily entail or imply that a person was or is actively involved in espionage activity. Venona materials indicated a very large number of espionage agents remained unidentified by the FBI. When McCarthy was questioned on the number, he referred to the Lee List of security risks, by which it appears Hoover was attempting to match unidentified code names to known security risks. Hoover kept the identities of persons known to be involved in espionage activity from Venona evidence secret. Hoover in the very early days of the FBI's joint investigation with the [[Army Signals Intelligence Service]] in May of 1946 did precisely the same deception with a confidant of [[President Truman]] using Venona decryptions. Hoover reported that a reliable source revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names, [[KGB|Soviet agents]] [[Alger Hiss]] and [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] were listed well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State [[Dean Acheson]]” and included others beyond reproach, thus discrediting the Hiss and Silvermaster accusations, which actually were on target. Hence the Truman White House always suspected Hoover and the FBI of playing partisan political games with accusations of various administration members’ complicity in Soviet espionage. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster050.pdf Vol. 50, pgs. 13-16] pdf, May 29, 1946.</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, Chairmans Forward], 1997.</ref>

The Venona project specifically references at least 349 pseudonyms in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies, however not all were ever identified. In public hearings before the [[Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]] (PSI) conducted by McCarthy, 83 persons plead the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. An additional 9 persons refused to testify on constitutional grounds in private hearings, and their names were not made public. <ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632|''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American, Section III. Committee Chairman (1953-54).</ref> Of the 83 persons pleading the fifth amendment, several have been identified by [[NSA]] and [[FBI]] as agents of the Soviet Union in the [[Venona project]] involved in espionage. Several prominent examples are:

* [[Mary Jane Keeney]], a United Nations employee, and her husband [[Philip Keeney]], who worked in the [[Office of Strategic Services]];<ref>
Senator McCarthy stated, "Then there was a Mrs. Mary Jane Keeney from the Board of Economic Warfare in the State Department, who was named in a F.B.I. report and a House Committee report as a courier for the Communist Party while working for the Government. And where do you think Mrs. Keeney is -- she is now an editor in the U.N. Documents Bureau."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1956
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Lauchlin Currie]], a special assistant to President Roosevelt;<ref>
On September 9, 1950, at the Columbia County Republican Club in Portage, Wisconsin, Senator McCarthy stated, "Just turn back a page of history to 1945. This Lauchlin Currie was administrative assistant to the President. This is the same Lauchlin Currie who has been named under oath by [[Elizabeth Bentley]] as the man who tipped off her Russian espionage agents that we were about to break the Japanese code...This is the same Lauchlin Currie whose picture I hold in my hand, with a picture of [[Harry Dexter White]], John Abt, and Alger Hiss -- all named under oath repeatedly as Communists...At that time Lauchlin Currie was Administrative Assistant to the President. The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved sending vast amounts of German captured arms to those fighting Communism in China. After the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Eisenhower had approved the shipment -- after vast quantities had left German ports destined for our allies in China -- Lauchlin Currie, Truman's Administrative Assistant, the man named by Bentley and Chambers, signed an order on White House stationery ordering that all this military equipment be destroyed."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}) 
On June 14, 1951, Senator McCarthy gave the Senate information about Currie and his connection to the other individuals involved in supporting the Chinese Communists. He stated, "The Stilwell-Davies group took over in China in 1942. Soon thereafter, Lauchlin, at the White House, and [[John Carter Vincent]], and subsequently [[Alger Hiss]] at the State Department were exercising their influence at the Washington end of the transmission belt conveying poisonous misinformation from ChungKing. The full outlines of Currie's betrayal have yet to be traced....In this connection it should be recalled that Currie issued an order on White House stationery depriving the Republic of China of 20,000 German rifles."
({{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 14, 1951
| title = Page 6574
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Virginius Frank Coe]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of V. Frank Coe, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol1.pdf Vol. 1]: 147-50, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvo43.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3413, 3417-18, 3421, 3428-29
testimony of, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol2.pdf Vol. 2]: 1349-72.
</ref>, Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;
* [[William Ludwig Ullman]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of William Ludwig Ullman, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol3.pdf Vol. 3]: 2146, 2147, 2152, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol4.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3411-14, 3418, 3421, 3426-29, testimony of, Vol. 3: 2345-49.</ref>, delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
* [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol2.pdf Vol. 2]: 1349, 1361, 1362, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol4.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3412-14, 3425-29.</ref>, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
* [[Harold Glasser]], U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
* Four staff members of the [[LaFollette Committee|LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee]], a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;
* [[Allan Rosenberg]], Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, [[Foreign Economic Administration]]; Counsel to the [[National Labor Relations Board]];
* [[Solomon Adler]], U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of [[Mao Zedong]];
* [[Robert T. Miller]], Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;<ref>Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.</ref>
* [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]]; also identified in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives;
*[[Laurence Duggan]], head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; <ref>Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.</ref>
* [[Leonard Mins]], <ref>[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Volume3.pdf Army Signal Corps—Subversion and Espionage, October 22] (PDF). Executive Sessions Of The Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Of The Committee On Government Operations; Vol. 3. pgs. 2717-2726, U.S. Government Printing Office (1953).</ref> Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the [[Office of Strategic Services]];
* [[Cedric Belfrage]] <ref>[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.html Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations], Vol. 2, Eighty-third Congress, 14 May 1953, pgs. 1135-1164.</ref>, [[British Security Coordination]]; founder the ''[[National Guardian]]''.
* [[Gerald Graze]], U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
* [[Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov]], ''[[Daily Worker]]''; <ref>Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.</ref>
* [[David Karr]], Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

Venona transcripts confirm the Senate Civil Liberties Subcommittee, chaired by former Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946, had at least four staff members working on behalf of the [[KGB]]. Chief Counsel of the Committee [[John Abt]]; [[Charles Kramer]], who served on three other Congressional Committees; Allen Rosenberg, who also served on the [[National Labor Relations Board]], [[Board of Economic Warfare]] (BEW), the [[Foreign Economic Administration]] (FEA) and later argued cases before the United States Supreme Court; and [[Charles Flato]], who served on the BEW and FEA, all were [[CPUSA]] members and associated with the [[Comintern]].

While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholarship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complicit in espionage, many were considered security risks. <ref>[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona], by John Earl Haynes, April 2007.</ref>

===Known security/loyalty risks===

In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall, calling to his attention a condition that developed and was continuing in the State Department. The memo stated that
{{Cquote|it was evident there was a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involved a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions.}}
Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950).</ref>

The memorandum listed the names of nine State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." Ten persons were removed from the list by June 24th. But from 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. <ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm John Emil Peurifoy, Foreign Service Office & United States Ambassador], Arlington National Cemetery Website, retrieved 21 March 2007.</ref> In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.

Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. <ref>[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona], by John Earl Haynes, April 2007.</ref> The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the [[Venona project]] listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:


* [[Robert Warren Barnett]] & [[Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Numbers 48 and 49 respectively and both are Number 59 on the Lee list. McCarthy stated, "The letters of charges against the Barnetts--both Robert Warren Barnett and his wife, Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett-charge them with close association and constant contact with known Soviet espionage activity." See also FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 116, Robert Barnett contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] formerly of [[OSS]]; Robert Barnett also served in OSS.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})
See also
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file, Hottel to the Director
| year = May 12, 1947
| title = [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster116.pdf Vol. 116, pg. 100] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government,}}
Robert Barnett contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] formerly of [[OSS]]; Robert Barnett also served in OSS).</ref>
* [[Esther Brunauer]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 47 and Number 55 on the Lee list. She belonged to a number of [[Communist front]] organizations, including chairman of a meeting of the American Friends of the Soviet Union where the main speaker was a well known Communist and writer for the ''Daily Worker''. "Brunauer was a signer of a call to the annual meeting of the [[American Youth Congress]] which was publicly known to be completely dominated by the Communist Party. She admitted that her husband had Communist connections and had been a member of the [[Young Communist League]]." Brunauer was suspended by the State Department in 1951 pending adjudication of security proceedings against her. On June 16, 1952, she was discharged by the State Department as a security risk. See ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning'' for greater detail on this case.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Stephen Brunauer]], U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;<ref>
McCarthy stated, "Brunauer, an admitted former member of the Young Communist League, was suspended from his job as head of the Navy's high explosives section where he was engaged in top secret work. He resigned before the Navy's Loyalty Board could complete questioning him and dispose of his case." Brunauer also had a reputation for associating with know Communists. McCarthy stated, "For example, his very good friend, [[Noel Field]], a known Communist and espionage agent, spent night after night with Stephen Brunauer, who had access to all the top secrets in the explosive section of our Navy. Field then left the country, and has since disappeared behind the iron curtain, taking with him all the information which his friend Brunauer had given him ... What forced the Navy to take action was that it appeared during the atom-spy investigations that Stephen Brunauer was involved."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = May 8, 1951
| title = Page 5058
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}</ref>
* [[Gertrude Cameron]], Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 55 and Number 65 on the Lee list. Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Cameron as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Cameron, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Cameron remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Cameron, like, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>
An FBI Surveillance report on [[Edward Fitzgerald (Soviet spy)|Edward Fitzgerald]] from September 1947 notes that on May 20 1947 Fitzgerald's brother-in-law had lunch with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] and an appointment with [[Leslie Groves]]. Sometime later Frank Cameron, a regular contact of Fitzgerald tried to contact Gertrude Cameron in the State Department from the Fitzgerald’s home.
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file,
| year = September 1947
| title = Volume 130, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster130.pdf pgs 17 -18] pdf
| publisher = Federal Bureau of Investigation}})</ref>
* [[Nelson Chipchin]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 23. Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Chipchin as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Chipchin, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Chipchin remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Chipchin, like Cameron, Fishburn, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Oliver Edmund Clubb]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
McCarthy presented Clubb's name and evidence against him to the [[Tyding's Committee]]. In 1952, by unanimous vote, the U.S. State Department Loyalty and Security Board found that Clubb's employment in the State Department constituted a security risk. The Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, Carlisle Humelsine agreed with this decision. Clubb ultimately resigned. On March 5, 1952, [[Dean Acheson|Secretary Acheson]] confirmed to the Media that Senator McCarthy was correct.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[John Paton Davies]], U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;<ref>
McCarthy stated that, "Both [John Stewart] Service and Davies spent considerable time in China as State Department officials. In their recommendations to Washington both followed the Communist Party line. For example, on November 7, 1944, Davies submitted a memorandum to the State Department outing that the Communist Party in China was 'a modern dynamic popular government.' At the same time he referred to the anti-Communists as 'feudal.' 'The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's but theirs,' said Davies. On December 12, 1944 he urged that we supply the Chinese Communists with arms -- a proposal which [[Dean Acheson]] two years later requested Congress to approve." In 1944, Ambassador to China, [[Patrick J. Hurley]], accused Davies of working behind his back to support the Communists. According to Hurley, "Davies had one day flown off to Yenan to tell [[Mao Zedong|Mao TseTung]], the Communist leader, that Hurley, our Ambassador (an anti-Communist), did not represent the American viewpoint." According to ''The China Story'' by [[Freda Utley]], Davies was a great fan of Communist operative [[Agnes Smedley]] who operated in China. Utley states, "Davies was also a great admirer of [[Agnes Smedley]], whom he called one of 'the pure in heart.' He used to invite us all to excellent dinners at the American consulate, at which he expressed both his admiration and affection for Agnes. Together with [[Edgar Snow]] and other journalists I knew in Hankow, he [Davies] became one of the most potent influences in the Department [of State] furthering the cause of the Chinese Communists." The [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] had found that Davies had "testified falsely before the subcommittee in denying that he recommended the Central Intelligence Agency employ, utilize and rely upon certain individuals having Communist associations and connections. This matter was...substantial in import." Despite the enormous evidence of Davies' support of the Communists, the State Department cleared him of being a security/loyalty risk. Eventually, in 1954, under political pressure from McCarthy and Senator [[Patrick McCarran]], Secretary of State [[John Foster Dulles]] asked Davies to resign. When he refused, on 5 November, 1954, Dulles terminated his employment, stating that Davies had "demonstrated a lack of judgment, discretion and reliability."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 14, 1951
| title = Page 6574
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Utley
| first = Freda
| year = 1951
| title = The China Story
| publisher = Chicago, H. Regnery Co.
| id = ASIN B00005VL2B}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Gustavo Duran]], U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;<ref>
The Duran Case is considered one of Senator McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases". McCarthy attempted to present evidence of Gustavo Duran's status as a security risk during the [[Tydings Committee]]. In violation of its mandate, the Tydings Committee refused to discuss McCarthy's evidence. Intelligence reports presented by McCarthy made the case quite clear that Duran was a bad security risk. All evidence submitted indicated that Duran was a Communist agent prior and during WWII, who took orders directly from the Soviet Union. It is unclear whether Duran was either hired with the knowledge that he had a Communist Party background or whether the State Department Loyalty Board simply failed to perform its obligation to properly screen out security risks. Either way, the State Department failed to perform its duties.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}},
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}},
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1956
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}},
Isaac Walton League, Fond du Lac (July 30, 1950), Wisconsin)
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file, Tamm to the Director,
| year = April 22, 1946
| title = [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster042.pdf Vol. 42, pg. 100] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government}}

{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file
| year = October 10, 1946
| title = http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster076.pdf [Vol. 76, pgs. 9 and 126] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government}}; (heavily redacted). Memorandum discuss inquiry from the U.S. Statement as to the participation of [[Alger Hiss]], Gustavo Duran and others in the [[Amerasia]] case. Fitch recommends replying to the State Dept. by referring to the detailed memoranda on Hiss and Duran which was previously submitted and a summary memo transmitted to General Holmes, to Fred Lyon's attention on May 29, 1945 in connection with [[Philip Jaffe]] and the Amerasia case (pg. 9). Statement that memos on Alger Hiss and Gustavo Duran will follow. Hiss memo is included, but that on Duran is not (pg. 126).</ref>

* [[Arpad Erdos]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
Just like [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Erdos as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Erdos, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Erdos remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Erdos, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Herbert Fierst]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 1 and Number 51 on the Lee list. Fierst was employed by the State Department beginning in September, 1946. In 1951, he was placed into the loyalty-security channels of the State Department. The Civil Service Loyalty Review Board expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his case, and sent it back to the State Department Board for readjudication. Afterwards, a judgment was issued by the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board that, "a State Department officer's loyalty status had not been explored with sufficient thoroughness even after seven years." According to Robert L. Bannerman, Special Assistant and security officer in the State Department, in a memo issued by him on August 2, 1946, indicates that, "physical surveillance showed that this man Fierst was in constant contact with members of an espionage group and that he recommended Communists for State Department employment, and was engaged in a number of other Communist activities."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster064.pdf Vol. 64, pg. 240] pdf. Brief background on Herbert Fierst.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster077.pdf Vol. 77, pg. 202] pdf, September 1946.</ref>
* [[John Tipton Fishburn]], U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;<ref>Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Fishburn as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Fishburn, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Fishburn remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Fishburn, like Cameron, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Theodore Geiger]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
During the [[Tydings Committee]] hearings, Robert Morris, the Chief Counsel for the Minority, stated that Geiger was engaged in espionage activities as part of a Communist Party cell operating in the U.S. Morris offered to provide several witnesses who were also in Geiger's Communist Party cell however the Chairman of the [[Tydings Committee]], [[Millard Tydings]] declined to hear the testimony. On July 25, 1950, Senator McCarthy told the Senate about this case and that the witnesses to Geiger's Communist Party cell where willing to testify but that [[Millard Tydings]] refused the opportunity to expose a known Communist working for the State Department.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = July 25, 1950
| title = Page 1091
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Stella Gordon]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Gordon as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Gordon, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Gordon remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Gordon, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Stanley Graze]], U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;<ref>
Graze was McCarthy's Case Number 8. Graze and his brother, [[Gerald Graze|Gerald]], were both employed by the State Department during [[World War II]] and in 1944, Gerald was identified as a secret member of the [[Communist Party of the United States]]. Even so, Stanley continued to work for the State Department until 1948. Oddly enough, on April 20, 1948, the Loyalty Security Board cleared him. Ten days later he resigned and became employed with the United Nations. Both Gerald and Stanley Graze are identified in the 1948 ''Gorsky Memo'' of Compromised American sources and networks having a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. On October 14, 1952, while testifying before the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] he refused to answer questions regarding participation in the [[Communist Party of the United States]] and questions regarding espionage activity against the U.S. How Graze passed the State Department's Review Board remains unexplained.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Ruth Marcia Harrison]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Harrison as being a U.S. State Department employee who was clearly a security and loyalty risk. McCarthy mentioned that Harrison belonged to a long list of [[Communist front]] organizations and the Library of Congress branch of the Communist Party. Harrison was investigated by various branches of the Federal government numerous times before her termination in 1951, mainly because of her involvement in the 1930’s in organizations that had been identified as subversive. These organizations include the American Student Union, the [[Young Communist League]], and the Washington Bookshop Association. Subversive elements in the Federal government were able to clear Harrison in all prior investigations, but in 1951, her luck ran out. An informant revealed that Harrison had been active in the Library of Congress branch of the Communist Party when she was employed there as a cataloger, and this information ultimately led to the Loyalty and Security Board’s determination that Harrison posed a security risk as a Federal employee. Government documents related to her case that were declassified after amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in 1975, including investigation files from the [[FBI]], the State Department, the [[CIA]], and the Civil Service Commission indicated that the government's case against Harrison was absolutely correct and her termination justified.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Myron Victor Hunt]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Hunt as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Hunt, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Hunt remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Hunt, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Philip Jessup]], U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;<ref>
McCarthy's first comments regarding Jessup were made during the [[Tydings Committee]] hearings where McCarthy stated that Jessup had an unusual affinity for Communist causes. McCarthy was never allowed by the Tydings Committee to outline his case regarding Jessup but the committee did allow Jessup to fly in from Pakistan and give his defense against charges that McCarthy had not yet even made. Needless to say, the Tydings Committee cleared Jessup as they did with everyone that appeared before them. However, in two speeches on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy gave his evidence regarding Jessup's "unusual affinity for Communist causes". They are as follows: 
(1) That Jessup had been affiliated with five [[Communist front]] groups;
(2) That Jessup had been a leading light in the [[Institute of Pacific Relations]] (IPR) at a time that organization was reflecting the Communist Party line;
(3) And that he had "pioneered the smear campaign against Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek" and propagated the "myth of the 'democratic Chinese Communist'" through the IPR magazine, ''Far Eastern Survey'', over which he had "absolute control";
(4) That Jessup had associated with known Communists in the IPR;
(5) That the IPR's American Council under Jessup's guidance had received more than $7,000 of Communist funds from [[Frederick Vanderbilt Field]];
(6) That Jessup had "expressed vigorous opposition" to attempts to investigate Communist penetration of the IPR;
(7) That Jessup had urged that United States atom bomb production be brought to a halt in 1946, and that essential atomic ingredients be "dumped into the ocean";
(8) That Jessup had appeared as a character witness for Alger Hiss, and that later, after Hiss's conviction, Jessup had found "no reason whatever to change his opinion about Hiss's veracity, loyalty and integrity."
While it may be questionable that Jessup pioneered the smear campaign against Chiang Kai-Shek, it's clear that he aided in it. There's no doubt that every single one of these allegations was essentially correct. Solid evidence shows that Jessup was associated with four Communist front organizations. They are as follows:
the [[American Russian Institute]], the [[National Emergency Conference]] (and its successor, the [[National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights]]), the [[American Law Students Association]], and the [[American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations]]. According to the House Committee on Un-American Activities each of these organizations was cited as Communist front groups at the time of Jessup's association with them. Although the Tydings Committee did not allow McCarthy to present his evidence against Jessup, the Tydings Committee did refer to some of McCarthy's evidence that were made on the floor of the Senate. Of course, as usual, the Tydings Committee either ignored the significance of the evidence or downplayed it. It was up to the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] a year later to do the real investigating and in discussing the IPR, it stated, "The IPR was a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives." The McCarran Committee Hearings clearly indicate that the IPR was more than just a Communist front organization in that there was an active Communist "cell" that put the services of the IPR at the disposal of "Communist imperialism". And that this was achieved by "manipulating" the IPR's policy-making officials. 
The McCarran Committee reported that ten of the thirty-three individuals whom Jessup recommended as delegates to the IPR Hot Springs Convention in January of 1945 have been named as members of the Communist Party. Jessup was well aware that Frederick Vanderbilt Field was a member of the Communist Party, and especially so when Field resigned from the IPR to devote full time to the [[Communist front]] organization, [[American Peace Mobilization]]. 
Jessup also presided over the State Department Policy Conference of October 1949 that was not only stocked with Jessup's pro-Communist associates but also, in the words of the McCarran Committee, which stated, "...the prevailing [majority] view at the conference advocated (a) the recognition of Communist China; (b) normal trade relations between the United States and Communist China; (c) encouragement of trade between Japan and Communist China; (d) economic assistance to Communist China; (e) recognition that Communist conquest in Asia was a natural and inevitable consequence of revolutionary ferment in Asia with its Communist nature being incidental." [[Harold Stassen]] and [[General Joseph Fortier]] have respectively testified that Jessup not only ignored advice to disregard the pro-Communist direction of the conference and that Jessup was in favor of recognizing Communist China. The above evidence clearly demonstrates that Jessup was at least a security risk and that the State Department Loyalty program failed to identify him as such.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Tydings Committee Hearings
| year = 1950
| title = Pages 28, 41, 42, 100, 229, 247, 256, 257, 273, 497-498, etc.
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = March 30, 1950
| title = Pages 4402-4405
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 2, 1950
| title = Pages 8000-8003
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarran Report,
| year = July 1952
| title = Pages 100-103, 122-123, 147-148, 212, 225, 494-495, etc.
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Dorothy Kenyon]], New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;<ref>
Dorothy Kenyon is considered one of McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases" that was presented to the [[Tydings Committee]]. Kenyon was McCarthy's first case and it took two days in order for McCarthy to present the evidence due to the constant interruptions by members of the Tyding's Committee. This prompted Senator Lodge to state that, "I think to interrupt the witness [McCarthy] every time and break up his continuity and destroy the flow of his argument, the way we are doing, is not the right procedure....For some reason that has not been made clear to me, whether it is to rattle or whether it is to confuse, I don't know, we have an entirely different procedure today...I am objecting to the constant interruption of the witness so that he never gets a fair shake." 
Despite the constant harassment, McCarthy's evidence included showing that Kenyon belonged to at least 24 Communist front organizations labeled as such in part by the [[United States Attorney General]], the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]], and other governmental committees. The documents presented by McCarthy included, official organization letterheads that listed Kenyon as a sponsor or as a member, official programs of organization sponsored dinners, and newspaper reports of open letters that Kenyon had signed that connected her with the organizations. Certainly, these were all documents that were easily accessible to the State Department should they have cared to look into Kenyon's political background. 
When Kenyon was asked by the Tydings Committee whether she had ever been interviewed by the State Department as to her affiliation to any Communist front organizations, she responded that she had never been asked. According to the security evaluation procedure of the State Department, Kenyon should have been asked about these affiliations but failed to do so. McCarthy had easily demonstrated from this first case that the screening process of the State Department was certainly lax and quite possibly purposefully ignoring easily identifiable security risks. However, the Tydings Committee instead ignored this evidence and set the precedent for the hearings that anyone that came before the committee was going to be given a positive evaluation no matter how strongly the evidence indicated the witness was a security risk.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Tydings Committee Hearings
| year = 1950
| title = Page 68
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = March 30, 1950
| title = Pages 4380-81
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Leon Hirsch Keyserling]], President [[Harry Truman]]'s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;<ref>
Keyserling had an extensive background of service in the U.S. government. He had helped to shift the emphasis of U.S. economic policy toward a more [[Socialist]]ic structure. Evidence in the form of sworn testimony submitted to the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] indicated that he agreed with the principles of the Communist Party except for the idea that Communization of the U.S. could only be achieved through "bloody revolution" and he was against the idea of a separate political entity for Black people in the U.S. South. Other than those two details, Keyserling, a major official in the U.S. government, agreed with the Communization of the U.S. Less than a year after Senator McCarthy made this information public, Keyserling left U.S. government work for the private sector yet continued to act as a paid consultant to the U.S. Congress.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 21, 1952
| title = Page 4153
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Mary Dublin Keyserling]], U.S. Department of Commerce;<ref>
Keyserling is the wife of [[Leon Hirsch Keyserling]] and also had an extensive background working for the U.S. government. On April 21, 1952, McCarthy gave her specifics to the Senate. He stated that the evidence presented to the Commerce Department's Loyalty Board showed that Keyserling had been a member of the Communist Party and that she also belonged to a great many Communist front organizations.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 21, 1952
| title = Page 4153
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Kopelewich as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Kopelewich, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Kopelewich remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Kopelewich, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Owen Lattimore]], Board member of the communist-dominated [[Institute of Pacific Relations]] (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal ''Pacific Affairs'';<ref>
Identified by McCarthy as a Communist and under Party discipline. Former Communist Party member and head of the Buben group of spies, [[Louis Budenz]] corroborated McCarthy's claims and detailed how Lattimore had been of service to the Communist Party in the ''Amerasia'' case. Lattimore was also identified by former Soviet Army General [[Alexander Barmine]] as a member of Russian Military Intelligence ([[GRU]]). In a unanimous report, the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] classified Lattimore as a "conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy". Lattimore wrote a letter of introduction for [[Haakon Chevalier]] to [[KGB]] operative, [[Lauchlin Currie]]. Chevalier was attempting to obtain a Government job during this period of time. Chevalier is a known Soviet Secret Intelligence Service ([[NKVD]]) contact and was associated with numerous members of the Communist Party on the West Coast. Currie also recommended Lattimore to President Roosevelt to serve as a special advisor to [[Chiang Kai-shek]]. Indicted for committing perjury. In December 1952, Currie gave evidence in New York to a grand jury investigating Lattimore's role in the publication by [[Amerasia]] magazine of secret State Department documents. All evidence indicates that Lattimore was a security and a loyalty risk and served to guide U.S. foreign policy to the detriment of U.S national interests.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee]], U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;<ref>
Born in the Soviet Union. On August 9, 1951, McCarthy presented to the Senate information about Lifantieff-Lee. He stated that, "His file in the Navy Department, which was transmitted to the State Department, shows that he took secret State Department documents, which were found in his room and picked up by naval intelligence. That is shown by the naval intelligence report."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Val R. Lorwin]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;<ref>
In December, 1945, Lorwin became employed with the State Department. He quickly became Chief of the State Department's European Division of International Labor, Social, and Health Affairs. After that, he became a labor economist for the State Department. On February 5, 1952, approximately one year after the [[Tyding's Committee]] cleared Lorwin, the State Department suspended him. On March 28, 1952, he was restored to full duty, and in June 1952, was formally cleared of all charges regarding security or loyalty issues. Shortly thereafter, Lorwin resigned, and went to work for the University of Chicago as an assistant professor of social sciences and industrial relations. According to Buckley, "on December 4, 1953, a Federal Grand Jury handed down an indictment of Lorwin, charging that he had lied under oath in claiming (1) that he had never been a member of the Communist Party, (2) that he had never carried a Communist Party card, and (3) that he had never held a Communist Party meeting in his home.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Daniel F. Margolies]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy gave the Senate information on an employee of the State Department named Daniel F. Margolies. McCarthy described Margolies as, "one of the top security men in the State Department" and was hired by the State Department despite the fact that he was disapproved on the grounds that he was a "bad loyalty and security risk." The State Department never explained the rationale in hiring someone who was clearly a security and loyalty risk.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref> <ref>FBI Silvmaster file 5c pg. 11 pdf. [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm5c.pdf]</ref>
* [[Peveril Meigs]], U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;<ref>
Meigs became employed with the State Department in September, 1945, and was allowed to resign from the State department in 1948 even though there were concerns regarding his security/loyalty. McCarthy related to the Senate the fact that Meigs was under investigation by the State Department's security/loyalty board yet was allowed to resign without noting his file as having been under investigation. Subsequently, Meigs went to work for the Department of the Army and after McCarthy communicated to the Army that Meigs should be investigated, the Army then looked into Meigs' background and found him to be a clear loyalty/security risk. In January 12, 1952 and again on May 26, 1952, McCarthy stated to the Senate that, "On February 20, I believe, I laid before the Senate the case of Perveril Meigs. The State Department held a hearing. They knew that they could not conceivably clear Perveril Meigs, even with the type of board which they have. What did they do? They notified him that he would not be cleared, so he then resigned, went over to the Army and got a job in the Army, with no notification to the Army that this man was an extremely bad security risk because of close association with espionage agents. It was only after we called the Army's attention to the case that the Army Loyalty Board took the case up, and of course, they promptly ordered him discharged." Meigs' case is a perfect example of the State Department covering up either its' incompetence in hiring individuals that are security/loyalty risks and/or in being able to properly filter out such individuals once they are employees of the State Department. The tactic of informing a suspected security/loyalty risk and allowing him or her to resign was a strategy implemented in order for the State Department to avoid appearing incompetent or as though they did not make any effort to avoid hiring loyalty/security risks.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = January 15, 1952
| title = Page 192
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = May 26, 1952
| title = Page 5963
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Ella M. Montague]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;<ref>
She was born in the [[Soviet Union]] in 1896. On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy stated, "She [Montague] worked for the [[Amtorg Trading Corporation]]. The testimony before three different committees is that only top members of the Communist Party could work for Amtorg." McCarthy also stated that, "...5 or 6 of the officers of Amtorg were picked up about a year ago and charged with espionage. Under pressure from the State Department they were allowed to return to Russia." As usual, McCarthy was correct about both Montague being a security/loyalty risk and about Amtorg being a front organization to further the expansionistic goals of the Soviet Union. [[Amtorg Trading Corporation]] is an American company based in New York that was founded in 1924 by the Soviet Union to serve as its buying and selling organization in trade between the USSR and the USA. It handled the bulk of Soviet-American trade until 1935, and continues to exist today. Working as an Amtorg employee served as a convenient cover for Soviet spies, such the Soviet spy, [[Morris Cohen]].
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = The American Legion
| year = 1937
| title = ISMS: A Review of Alien Isms, Revolutionary Communism, and Their Active Sympathizers in the United States, Pages 85-87
| publisher = The American Legion, Indianapolis
| id = ASIN B000KIJS6Y}})</ref>
* [[Philleo Nash]], Presidential Advisor, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and [[Harry S. Truman]] administrations;<ref>
On January 29, 1952, Senator McCarthy outlined the charges against Nash, who had been a Presidential advisor in the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman administrations. McCarthy stated that this matter was "developed by the F.B.I." and that Nash "had been in close contact with the Communist underground in Washington D.C."; that he had been a close friend and associate of a convicted Canadian Communist; that Nash had "contributed to the support of the Canadian ''Tribune'', the official organ of the Communist Party in Canada"; that during the early 1940's some of the Canadian spy ring were using his home in Toronto as a meeting point and that some of them were living there; and that in the early 1940's Nash "was attending Communist meetings and had officially joined the Communist Party." In an interview with Jerry N. Hess on May 15, 1969, Nash essentially confirmed the essence of these charges, yet Nash was never adversely affected by these issues. Nash had worked in the [[Office of War Information]] beginning in 1942.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = January 29, 1952
| title = Page 581
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Hess
| first = Jerry
| title = Oral History Interview with Philleo Nash
| publisher = Truman Presidential Museum and Library
| date = May 15, 1969
| url = http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/nash15.htm}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster058.pdf Vol. 58, pgs. 107 - 110] pdf.</ref><ref> [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster065.pdf Vol. 65, pgs. 155 - 156] pdf. August 1946. Notes contact between Nash and [[Louise Bransten]] in January 1944. Bransten was the mistress of San Francisco [[KGB]] [[Rezident]] [[Grigory Kheifets]] who made initial contact with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] in the home of Bransten on December 6, 1941.</ref>
* [[Olga V. Osnatch]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Osnatch as his Case #81. At the time of McCarthy's original investigation, Osnatch was not yet a citizen of the United States. At the time of this speech, it was not clear if she had gotten her citizenship papers or not. McCarthy stated that, "She worked for the Russian Embassy in Turkey for 3 years. Then with the Russian Welfare Society, and so forth. One of the significant things here, of course, is that the Russians do not hire people in their embassies unless they are Communists." So, what McCarthy was making clear in this speech was that only committed Communists are employed with Soviet agencies. Why an assumed Communist was allowed to work for the U.S. government was yet another mystery that the Truman administration would not explain.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Edward Posniak]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;<ref>
Posniak was submitted to the Tyding's Committee by McCarthy as Case Number 77. An F.B.I. agent and an F.B.I. informant reported that Posniak was a member of the Communist Party. On November 15, 1950, the State Department contacted the Loyalty Review Board that Posniak "elected to resign rather than accept suspension pending investigation and adjudication of certain charges bearing loyalty."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Philip Raine]], U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, McCarthy stated, "He [Raine] is tied up, in the letter of the charges, very closely with Robert T. Miller, who has been identified under oath several times as a Russian espionage agent." McCarthy was making a close association to Miller who he himself had been identified by former Soviet operative, [[Elizabeth Bentley]] in her 1945 FBI statement. Again, it was incumbent upon the State Department to investigate these serious allegations yet did nothing about them.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster023.pdf "Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government"], Vol. 23, pgs. 55 - 272 pdf, February 21, 1946. Includes alphabetical index at end. In the later part of February 1946, the [[FBI]] transmitted to Secretary of State [[George Marshall]]l a 194 page Report based upon Soviet defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition three months earlier entitled, "Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government." Preliminary investigations and other information in Bureau files gave support and credence to the providential value of Bentley's serious allegations. Bentley had been assigned a covername by the FBI, "Gregory," and the highly secret investigation was referred to by investigators as "the Gregory Case." State Department internal investigators provided a list of questions to the FBI for the confidential informant to answer. The Statement requested information about Philip and Alice Raine. Bentley, who worked out of New York, responded the names were entirely unfamiliar (pg. Vol. 96, pg. 87). Philip and Alicia Raine subsequently were developed as leads by FBI investigators in the Washington field office while surveilling the many contacts of [[Mary Jane Keeney]]. </ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Hoover letter to Secretary of State George Marshall, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster096.pdf Vol. 96, pgs. 85 -90] pdf, March 10, 1946.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster077.pdf Vol. 77, pgs. 133, 135, 201] pdf, September 1946.</ref>
* [[Robert Ross]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Ross as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Ross, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Ross remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Ross, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Neumann, Schimmel, and Tuchser, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Sylvia Schimmel]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Schimmel as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Schimmel, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Schimmel remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Ross, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Neumann, and Tuchser, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster061.pdf Vol. 61, pgs. 74 -79] pdf; Hottel to the Director, "Just Lunning," July 18, 1947. Discussion between [[Mary Jane Keeney]] and Sylvia Schimmel about Just Lunning, who would become Schimmel’s supervisor at the State Department. Sylvia Schimmel complained to Just Lunning she was not being given meaningful work at the State Dept. due to Schimmel's work for the Political Action Committee. Just Lunning had links to William T. Stone, [[V. Frank Coe]], Philip Dunaway, David Wahl, [[Donald Wheeler]], [[Allan Rosenberg]], Bowen Smith, and [[Edward Fitzgerald]]. Mary Jane Keeney had innumerable contacts in the [[CPUSA]] underground espionage apparatus which included [[Greg Silvermaster]], [[Helen Silvermaster]], [[Sergey Kurnakov]], [[Joseph Bernstein]], [[Frederick Field]], [[Maurice Halperin]], [[Haakon Chevalier]], [[Richard Bransten]], [[Laurence Todd]], [[William Ullman]], and [[Robert Miller]]. Much of the Silvermaster file is devoted to surveillance reports on them. Mary Jane Keeney had served in the occupation of Berlin while at this time her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] was serving in Japan. Mary Jane Keeney was seeking to join him there. The FBI and State Department officials were moving to prevent this, and to have Philip recalled from his position with the occupation forces. Mary Jane Keeney had turned to Sylvia Schimmel for assistance with her passport problems.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster065.pdf Vol. 65, pg. 51] pdf.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster096.pdf Vol. 96, pg. 78] pdf.</ref>
* [[Frederick Schumann]], contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;<ref>
Schumann was a consultant for the State Department but not as an employee. His job was to lecture and train State Department employees who were subsequently to be placed in sensitive posts. In this capacity, out of 57 instructors, only three, Schumann, Edward Acheson (Dean's brother), and Communist [[Owen Lattimore]] were not government officials. According to the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]], Schumann was a member of over 50 Communist front organizations. In 1932, Schuman supported the Communist Party ticket for President. Schumann wrote a pro-Soviet book titled, ''Soviet Politics at Home and Abroad'' that appeared just before the State Department enlisted him for his help in helping out orient the Foreign Service officers. While Schumann declined an invitation to the [[Tydings Committee]] in order to address charges against him, the Committee, as with other cases, showed no interest in determining why pro-Soviet lecturers were being utilized by the State Department and who was doing the hiring.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
({{cite book
| last = Herman, Arthur
| year = 1999
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = December 19, 1950
| title = Page 16747
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[John S. Service]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
Accused by McCarthy of being a security and loyalty risk. Between the years of 1942 and 1945, Service submitted memos to the U.S. State Department supporting the Chinese Communists and Mao and advocated that the U.S. destroy [[Chiang Kai-shek]]. According to Senator McCarthy, "Service was named by the U.S. Ambassador to China as one of the men who was serving the cause of Communism in China. He asked the President to remove Service. He said that this man's actions are not good for the United States, they are good for Russia. While in China, Service, in secret recommendations to the State Department, urged that the Communists were the only hope for China. On June 6, 1945, Service was arrested by the F.B.I. for, "having transmitted, without authority, classified documents to the editors of ''Amerasia'', a Communist magazine". Service had in effect turned over to a known Communist, not only State Department documents, but also secret military information. In December of 1951, Service was fired from the U.S. State Department, "as a result of an adverse finding as to his security qualifications by the Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2 }}
{{cite book
| last = Klehr, Harvey and Radosh, Ronald
| year = 1996
| title = The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism
| publisher = The University of North Carolina Press
| id = ISBN 0-80782-245-0}})</ref>
* [[Harlow Shapley]], U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;<ref>
Shapley joined at least six [[Communist front]] groups during the period of 1939-1941. By the time McCarthy had presented Shapley's case to the [[Tydings Committee]], Shapley was a member of at least 21 Communist front organizations, eight of them listed on the Attorney General's list. McCarthy's documentation clearly showed that Shapley remained associated with at least ten of these groups even after they were exposed and officially cited as subversive by multiple legislative investigating committees. In March 1949, at the "Waldorf Peace Conference", Shapley was Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions, of which even President Truman denounced as a "tool for Russia and a sounding board for Communist propaganda". Even so, Secretary of State Dean Achesson appointed Shapley as a representative of the U.S. and the U.S. State Department at UNESCO. 
So, despite even Truman's concerns, the State Department appointed yet another clear security risk. As Buckley states in his book, "...a Rider to the Appropriations Act forbade the paying of funds to a person actively affiliated with any organization on the Attorney General's list. And Shapley, according to the evidence before the Tydings Committee, clearly was such a person." As usual, the Tydings Committee ignored the facts and only made mention of Shapley's limited association with the State Department. Once again, McCarthy proved his case but was brushed aside by the Tydings Committee.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
({{cite book
| last = Herman, Arthur
| year = 1999
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1973
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[William T. Stone]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;<ref>
Accused by McCarthy as a security/loyalty risk, Stone is McCarthy's Case Number 46. As early as 1946, the Bannerman Security Screening Board of the State Department concluded that Stone should be "terminated", that Stone's "continued presence in the Department is embarrassing...that he be given an opportunity to resign" and failing to do so should result in his forced termination "under Civil Service Rule 3." The State Department failed to act on this recommendation and Stone continued working in the State Department. Stone was on the Communist controlled editorial board of ''Amerasia'' magazine, recommended fellow ''Amerasia'' members to jobs with the U.S. State Department, informed Venona identified Communist and espionage operative, [[Greg Silvermaster|Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] of an adverse security report concerning Silvermaster, was constantly under investigation as a security/loyalty risk, and was eventually given the opportunity to resign, which he did in 1952.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Frances M. Tuchser]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], and [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Tuchser as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Tuchser, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Tuchser remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Tuchser, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[John Carter Vincent]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;<ref>
One of McCarthy's numbered cases given to the [[Tydings Committee]]. During his tenure as chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs, Vincent played an important role in hastening Mao's conquest of China. The [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] concluded that "over a period of years, John Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of [[Institute of Pacific Relations|IPR]] pressures and influence in the State Department." [[Louis F. Budenz]] testified in the summer of 1951 that Vincent was a member of the Communist Party. In December 1952, the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board found reasonable doubt regarding Vincent's loyalty. In 1953, [[John Foster Dulles|Secretary Dulles]] requested Vincent's resignation.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[David Zablodowsky]], U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;<ref>
Zablodowsky was McCarthy's Case Number 103. Zablodowsky worked in the State Department and later as Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. He admitted to being a member of an espionage ring in 1936 after [[Whittaker Chambers]], on October 23, 1952, gave testimony before the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] regarding Zablodowsky's activities.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>


==Attacks on McCarthy==
One of the most prominent attacks on Senator McCarthy was an episode of the TV documentary series ''See It Now'', hosted by [[Edward R. Murrow]], which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref> By the time Murrow produced his "See It Now" assault on Senator McCarthy in 1954, the senator had been under almost constant vicious attack for four years. According to McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, Murrow and his staff had spent two months carefully editing film clips to portray McCarthy in the worst possible light. There were no clips showing McCarthy in a professional manner. Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using." The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>

In these clips, McCarthy accuses the [[Democratic Party]] of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the [[Soviet Union]] at the [[Yalta conference]] and [[Potsdam conference]], describes the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, [[Annie Lee Moss]] as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her [[Communist Party]] connection.<ref>Herman, pages 333-337</ref>

However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of ''[[Commonweal]]'', "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."<ref>Herman, p. 253</ref> Cogley commented that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light and, then further warned against the misuse of television in this fashion. He and another McCarthy critic from the ''Saturday Review'' agreed that it "was not a proud moment for television journalism".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Lately
| first = Thomas
| title = When Even Angels Wept
| publisher = Morrow
| date = 1973
| pages = page 466
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on ''See It Now'' on April 6, 1954, and presented his case in order to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised. McCarthy countered that his committee, "has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy." McCarthy went on to say, "For example, 238 witnesses were examined [in] public session; 367 witnesses examined [in] executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; twenty-four witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our committee." McCarthy also exposed Murrow's left-wing background and previous associations with Communist organizations.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy2.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref>

The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, and four years of consistent anti-McCarthy media reporting were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy. However, well-known broadcaster Eric Sevareid said the Murrow assault "came very late in the day. The youngsters read back and they think only one person in broadcasting and the press stood up to McCarthy and this has made a lot of people feel very upset, including me, because that program came awfully late."<ref>Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the media'']. Renew America.</ref>

Even Murrow discounted his role in the decline of Senator McCarthy's popularity. Murrow stated, "My God, I didn't do anything. (Times columnist) Scotty Reston and lot of guys have been writing like this, saying the same things, for months, for years. We're bringing up the rear."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Bayley
| first = Edwin R.
| title = Joe McCarthy and the Press
| publisher = University of Wisconsin Press
| date = 1981
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

Nevertheless, despite the deceptive nature of the ''See It Now'' program and the late date in which it appears, anti-McCarthy historians have credited and celebrated Murrow as playing a major role in damaging Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove security risks from the U.S. government.

==Senate opposition to McCarthy==
While over the previous few years, Senator McCarthy had withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by [[Liberals]], [[Communists]], etc., who sought to prevent him from damaging their causes any further; the organized and co-ordinated effort between the two groups to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in March of 1954.
===Senate opposition===
On March 9, 1954 a fellow conservative and anti-communist [[Republican]] Senator, [[Ralph E. Flanders]] of [[Vermont]], gave a speech criticizing what he felt was Senator McCarthy’s "misdirection of our efforts at fighting communism” and his role in “the loss of respect for us in the world at large.” Flanders felt the nation should pay more attention looking outwards at the “alarming world-wide advance of Communist power” that would leave the United States and Canada as “the last remnants of the free world.” <ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| date = March 9, 1954
| title = Activities of Senator McCarthy—The World Crisis
| publication-place = Washington, D.C.
| publisher = Proceedings and debates of the 83rd Congress, second session—Congressional Record
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 255-257
}}
</ref> [[Eisenhower Administration]] cabinet officials told Flanders to “lay off,” while President Eisenhower sent Flanders a brief note of appreciation for his speech, but did not otherwise confer with him or explicitly support him.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 258
}}
</ref> In a June 1, 1954 speech, Flanders emphasized how the Soviet Union was winning military successes in Asia without risking its own resources or men, and said this nation was witnessing "another example of economy of effort...in the conquest of this country for communism." He added, "One of the characteristic elements of communist and fascist tyranny is at hand as citizens are set to spy upon each other."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Crozier
| first = Barney
| title = Vermont Senator's Speech Heralded McCarthy's End
| publisher = Times-Argus Newspaper
| publication-place = Randolph, Vermont
| pages =
| year =1979
| date =September 29, 1979
| url =
}}</ref> Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of [[Adolf Hitler]] as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; he accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Woods
| first = Randall Bennett
| title = Fulbright: A Biography
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| date = 1995
| pages = 187
| id = ISBN 0-521-48262-3}}</ref>

On June 11, 1954 Flanders introduced a resolution charging McCarthy “with unbecoming conduct" and calling for his removal from his committee chairmanship. Upon the advice of Senators John Sherman Cooper and J. William Fulbright and legal assistance from the [[National Committee for an Effective Congress]], a liberal organization, he modified his resolution to “bring it in line with previous actions of censure.”<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 260-261, 267
}}
</ref> After introducing his censure motion, Flanders had no active role in the ensuing Watkins Committee hearings. Flanders bore McCarthy no personal animosity and reported that McCarthy accepted his invitation to join him at lunch after the hearings had taken place.<ref>Flanders, pages = 267-268
</ref>

===Watkins Committee===
Ultimately, McCarthy was accused of 46 different counts of allegedly improper conduct and another special committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Senator [[Arthur Watkins]], to study and evaluate the charges. This was to be the fifth investigation of Senator McCarthy in five years. This committee opened hearings on August 31, 1954. After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the original 46 counts. The committee exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges.<ref>44 of the 46 charges were dropped.[http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/nov05nl.html]</ref>

On November 8, 1954, a special session of the Senate convened to debate the two charges. The charges to be debated and voted on were: 1) That Senator McCarthy had "failed to cooperate" in 1952 with the Senate Subcommitee on Privileges and Elections that was looking into certain aspects of his private and political life in connection with a resolution for his expulsion from the Senate; and 2) That in conducting a senatorial inquiry, Senator McCarthy had "intemperately abused" General Ralph Zwicker.

The Zwicker count was dropped by the full Senate on the grounds that McCarthy's conduct was arguably "induced" by Zwicker's own behavior. Many senators felt that the Army had shown contempt for committee chairman McCarthy by disregarding his letter of February 1, 1954 and honorably discharging Irving Peress the next day. So, for this reason, the Senate concluded that McCarthy's conduct toward Zwicker on February 18th was justified.

Therefore, the Zwicker count was dropped at the last minute and was replaced with this substitute charge: 2) That Senator McCarthy, by characterizing the Watkins Committee as the "unwitting handmaiden" of the Communist Party and by describing the special Senate session as a "lynch party" and a "lynch bee," had "acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity."<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy] (1954) The United States Department of State.</ref>

On December 2, 1954, even though more than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him but had to do so because of the enormous pressure being put on them by the [[Eisenhower Administration]] and by leaders of both political parties, the Senate voted to "condemn" Senator Joseph McCarthy on both counts by a vote of 67 to 22. The Democrats voted unanimously in favor of condemnation and the Republicans split evenly.

===Resolution condemns McCarthy====
The resolution condemning Senator McCarthy has been criticized as a ridiculous attempt to silence the strongest voice in the Senate investigating security and loyalty risks in the U.S. government. When examined closely, the two counts used in condemning McCarthy were hopelessly flawed.

In analyzing the first count, "failure to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections", the fact is that the subcommittee never subpoenaed McCarthy, but only "invited" him to testify. One senator and two staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty towards McCarthy. In its final report dated January 2, 1953, the subcommittee, stated that the matters under consideration "have become moot by reason of the 1952 election." Up until this moment in U.S. history, no senator had ever been punished for something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an "invitation" to testify. Therefore, the first count was a complete fraud and nothing more than a trumped up charge in order to damage Senator McCarthy.

The second count was even more flawed than the first. McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had expressed outside the Senate when he criticized the Watkins Committee and the special Senate session. In an editorial by David Lawrence in the June 7, 1957 issue of ''U.S. News & World Report'', other senators had accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail, doing the work of the communists for them, and engaging in a questionable "personal relationship" with Roy Cohn and David Schine. However, these other Senators were not censured for acting "contrary to senatorial ethics" or for impairing the "dignity" of the Senate. Only Senator McCarthy would be held responsible for his words. <ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632|''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American.</ref>

==Final years==
[[Image:CapitolStepsSenatorMcCarthy.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The flag-draped coffin containing the body of Senator McCarthy is carried up the steps of the U.S. Capitol for funeral services in the Senate chamber after an earlier service at St. Matthew's Cathedral, May 6, 1957. Photograph courtesy of [http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/capitol_steps.html ''The Post-Crescent'']]]
Senator McCarthy's power and clout to continue the search for Communists in positions of power in America was severely curtailed. After the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1954, McCarthy, now a member of the minority Party, had to depend on public speeches to continue his campaign of warning the American people to the danger of Communism. He did this in a number of important addresses during those two and a half years.

In January 1957, McCarthy and his wife, Jean, adopted a baby girl and named her, Tierney. Unfortunately, several months later, McCarthy died of acute [[hepatitis]], likely brought on by his lifelong struggle with alcoholism, in Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 2, 1957, at the age of 48.

McCarthy was given a state funeral attended by 70 senators. McCarthy was the first senator in 17 years to have funeral services in the Senate chamber. Thousands of people viewed the body in Washington D.C. and it is estimated more than 30,000 people from Wisconsin filed through St. Mary's Church in the senator's hometown of Appleton, Wisconsin, where the clergy performed a Solemn Pontifical Requiem before more than 100 priests and 2,000 others. Three senators, George Malone, William E. Jenner, and Herman Welker, had flown from Washington D.C. to Appleton on the plane carrying McCarthy's casket. [[Robert Kennedy]] attended the funeral in Wisconsin. McCarthy was buried in St. Mary's Parish Cemetery in Appleton and was survived by his wife, Jean, and their adopted daughter, Tierney.

== Retrospective views on McCarthy==

* In her popular book, ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism'', [[Ann Coulter]] said of McCarthy:

::"A half century later, when the only people who call themselves Communists are harmless cranks, it is difficult to grasp the importance of McCarthy's crusade. But there's a reason 'Communist' now sounds about as threatening as 'monarchist' -- and it's not because of intrepid ''New York Times'' editorials denouncing McCarthy and praising Harvard educated Soviet spies. McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover."<ref>Coulter, Ann (2004). ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''. Three Rivers Press. pg. 33. ISBN 1-400-05032-4.</ref>

When Ann Coulter asked [[Fox News]]’ [[Bill O'Reilly]] to identify a McCarthy-tormented innocent, O'Reilly responded with [[Dalton Trumbo]], one of [[House Un-American Activities Committee]]'s (HUAC) “Hollywood Ten”, not realizing [[HUAC]] investigated CPUSA infiltration in Hollywood and called “the Hollywood Ten” of writers, directors and producers to testify in 1947. McCarthy did not start his crusade against Communism until 1950.

* In 1953-54, McCarthy had been investigating lax security in the top secret facility at [[Ft. Monmouth]], N.J. He was attacked by [[liberals]] and [[Communists]] on the grounds that there were no security problems at Ft. Monmouth. Years later, in addressing the reason why the U.S. Army's top-secret operations at Fort Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona, Senator [[Barry Goldwater]], in his 1979 book ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater'', Goldwater stated:

::"Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been penetrated. They didn't want to admit that McCarthy was right in his accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New Jersey to a new location in Arizona."<ref>Goldwater, Barry M. (1979). ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater''. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03547-7.</ref>

Even though McCarthy's investigations proved that his suspicions were right, for many years afterwards and continue to this day, liberals have spread the falsehood that McCarthy had found nothing at Fort Monmouth.

* Before the 1989 release of [[Carl Bernstein]]'s book, ''Loyalties: A Son's Memoir'', Albert Bernstein, Carl's father, expressed dismay at the revelations that the book would make regarding Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other sectors of American society. Albert Bernstein stated:

::"You're going to prove [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was right, because all he was saying is that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right. ... I'm worried about the kind of book you're going to write and about cleaning up McCarthy. The problem is that everybody said he was a liar; you're saying he was right. ... I agree that the Party was a force in the country."<ref>Brennan, Phil (April 23, 2003). [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22/225916.shtml ''The Left’s Lies That Never Die'']. NewsMax.com. Retrieved on 2007-06-20.</ref>

Both Albert Bernstein and Sylvia Bernstein, Carl's mother, had both been Communists since the 1940's. Albert Bernstein was a Union activist, while Sylvia Bernstein was a secretary for the War Department in the 1930's and, during the [[Clinton Administration]], volunteered in the White House, answering letters that were addressed to [[Hillary Clinton]]. During the 1950's, Sylvia Bernstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid revealing her party ties to Congress but worked openly in assisting convicted spies [[Julius Rosenberg]] and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 for espionage.

It should be pointed out how many people followed McCarthy on his crusade, and that many pro-Americans still do. The majority of the sources that discredited Senator McCarthy originated from a large assault by the liberal media that managed to sway the majority of Americans against him at that time.

==Bibliography==
* Buckley, William F. ''McCarthy and His Enemies'' (1954), a major statement by a young conservative
* Crosby, S.J., Donald F. ''God, Church and Flag: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and the Catholic Church, 1950-1957'' (1978). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104464047 online edition]
* Fried, Richard M. ''Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective'' 1990 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=79027083 online edition]
* Griffith, Robert. ''The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate'' 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=81177256 online edition]
* Herman, Arthur ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-McCarthy-Reexamining-Americas-Senator/dp/0684836254/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964395&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], very favorable to McCarthy
* Latham, Earl ''Communist Controversy in Washington: From the New Deal to McCarthy.'' (1969).
* O'Brien, Michael. ''McCarthy and McCarthyism in Wisconsin.'' (1981)
* Oshinsky, David M. ''A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy'' (1983), standard biography [http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-So-Immense-World-McCarthy/dp/019515424X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964395&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Reeves, Thomas C. ''The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography'' (1982), standard biography by a leading conservative scholar
===McCarthyism===
* Klehr, Harvey, John Earl Hayes and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov. ''The Secret World of American Communism'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Secret-World-American-Communism-Annals/dp/0300068557/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964654&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Klehr, Harvey, and Ronald Radosh. ''The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism'' (1996), suggests that Soviet spying in the postwar United States was extensive and that in the case of the arrest of the editors of the ''Amerasia'' magazine, and others, in 1945, naive liberals in the Justice and State departments blocked efforts to bring the spy ring to justice. [http://www.amazon.com/Amerasia-Spy-Case-Prelude-McCarthyism/dp/0807822450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964692&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Earl Raab. ''The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970'' (1970) (Chap. 6 "The 1950's: McCarthyism") [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65264140&oplinknum=16 online edition]
* Morgan, Ted. ''Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America.'' 2003. 685 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Reds-McCarthyism-Twentieth-Century-Ted-Morgan/dp/B000I0RTS8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964728&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* O'Reilly, Kenneth. ''Hoover and the Un-Americans: The FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace'' 1983
* Ottanelli, Fraser M. '' The Communist Party of the United States: From the Depression to World War II'' 1991 [http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Party-United-States-Depression/dp/0813516137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964802&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rausch, Scott Alan. "McCarthyism and Eisenhower's State Department, 1953-1961." PhD dissertation U. of Washington 2000. 231 pp. DAI 2000 61(6A): 2438-A. DA9976046
* Schrecker, Ellen. "McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism." ''Social Research'' 2004 71(4): 1041-1086. Issn: 0037-783x Fulltext: in Ebsco; summarizes her books on the subject
* Schrecker, Ellen. ''Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Many-Are-Crimes-McCarthyism-America/dp/0316774707/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964838&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schrecker, Ellen. ''The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents.'' (2d ed. 2002). 308 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Mccarthyism-History-Documents-Bedford/dp/0312294255/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964838&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Tanenhaus, Sam. ''Whittaker Chambers: A Biography'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Whittaker-Chambers-Biography-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375751459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964901&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Theoharis, Athan. ''Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counterintelligence but Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years.'' (2002). 307 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Spies-Counter-Intelligence-Promoted-McCarthyism/dp/1566634202/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964932&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Vassiliev, Alexander. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America: The Stalin Era'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Wood-Espionage-America-Paperbacks/dp/0375755365/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964983&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

===Media issues===
* Doherty, Thomas. ''Cold War, Cool Media: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Cool-Medium-McCarthyism/dp/0231129521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205965016&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dussere, Erik. "Subversion in the Swamp: Pogo and the Folk in the McCarthy Era." ''Journal of American Culture''2003 26(1): 134-141. Issn: 1542-7331 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Murphy, Brenda. ''Congressional Theatre: Dramatizing McCarthyism on Stage, Film, and Television.'' (1999). 310 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Congressional-Theatre-Dramatizing-McCarthyism-Television/dp/0521891663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205965050&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sbardellati, John and Shaw, Tony. "Booting a Tramp: Charlie Chaplin, the FBI, and the Construction of the Subversive Image in Red Scare America." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 2003 72(4): 495-530. Issn: 0030-8684 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684(200311)72%3A4%3C495%3ABATCCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]
* Strout, Lawrence N. ''Covering McCarthyism: How the Christian Science Monitor Handled Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950-1954.'' 1999. 171 pp. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/covering-mccarthyism-how-the-christian-science-monitor-handled-joseph-r-mccarthy-1950-1954-by-lawrence-n-strout.jsp online edition]

===Primary sources===
* Joe McCarthy. ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951'' U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9034820 online edition]
* Joe McCarthy. ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America'' 1952 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97298720 online edition]
* Fried, ed. Albert. ''McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare: a Documentary History'' 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54810194 online edition]
* Schrecker, Ellen W. "Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jun., 1988), pp. 197-208 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723(198806)75%3A1%3C197%3AASFTSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T at JSTOR]

==See also==


*[[Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]]
*[[Institute of Pacific Relations]]
*[[Amerasia]]
*[[William Henry Taylor]]
*[[Anatoli Gorsky]]
*[[Annie Lee Moss]]
*[[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]]


==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

#Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 Murrow, McCarthy, and the media]. Renew America.
#Bayley, Edwin R. (1981). ''Joe McCarthy and the Press''. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#Brennan, Phil (April 23, 2003). [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22/225916.shtml ''The Left’s Lies That Never Die'']. NewsMax.com.
#Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning''. Regnery Publishing Inc. ISBN 0-89526-472-2.
#Cohn, Roy (1968). ''McCarthy''. The New American Library, Inc. ASIN B000KIR8FC.
#[http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Communist_54.html Communist Control Act of 1954] U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 637, Chp. 886, p. 775-780.
#Coulter, Ann (2004). ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 1-400-05032-4.
#Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632 ''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American.
#Evans, Medford (1970). ''The Assassination of Joe McCarthy''. Western Islands. ISBN 0-88279-217-2.
#[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, Transcripts] (2003). U.S. Government Printing Office.
#Fox, Jr., John F., FBI Historian, (Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, Washington, D.C., 10/27/2005). [http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm ''In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence'']. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
#Goldwater, Barry M. (1979). ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater''. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03547-7.
#Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (2003). ''In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage''. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-088-X.
#Herman, Arthur (1999). ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator''. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Kazin, Michael (1998). ''The Populist Persuasion: An American History''. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-801-48558-4.
#Lately, Thomas (1973). ''When Even Angels Wept''. Morrow. page 466. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1961). ''America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall''. American Opinion (Reprint Series). ASIN B0007EKWVQ.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1953). ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951''. U. S. Government Printing Office. ISBN 0-87968-308-2.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1952). ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe''. The Devin-Adair Company. ASIN B0007DRBZ2.
#[http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], telegram.
#Morgan, T. (Nov./Dec. 2003). ''Judge Joe: How the youngest judge in Wisconsin's history became the country's most notorious senator''. Legal Affairs.
#[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45]
#Reeves, Thomas C. (1997). ''The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography''. Madison Books. ISBN 1-56833-101-0.
#Rusher, William A. (1968). ''Special Counsel''. Arlington House. ASIN B0006BUY2M.
#Utley, Freda (1951). ''The China Story''. Chicago, H. Regnery Co. ASIN B00005VL2B.
#Wicker, Tom (2006). ''Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy''. Harcourt, Inc. ISBN 0-15101-082-X
#Woods, Randall Bennett (1995). ''Fulbright: A Biography''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48262-3.

==External Links==

*[http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/victory.html America's Retreat From Victory], by Senator Joe McCarthy.
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the media'']. Renew America.
*[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, Transcripts]. (2003). U.S. Government Printing Office.
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf FBI Venona file]
*[http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm Silvermaster File Summaries]
*[http://boomp3.com/m/91d184a59074 Joseph McCarthy: Address To The Chicago Irish Fellowship Club] (listen online)
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/mccarthy.htm Joseph McCarthy FBI FOIA File], 4,296 pages.
*[http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/Mss/JRM/mss-JRM.html Joseph McCarthy Papers, Marquette University Library]
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=455 McCarthyism: Waging the Cold War in America], by M. Stanton Evans, ''Human Events'', 05/30/1997. Updated 05/08/2003.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''See It Now, Edward R. Murrow report on Senator McCarthy'']. (March 9, 1954). CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540406.html ''See It Now, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Reply to Edward R. Murrow'']. (April 6, 1954}. CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Oral Interview with Ruth Young Watt], Chief Clerk, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 1948-1979. United States Senate Historical Office. Retrieved from www.senate.gov 24 June 2007.

[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Communism]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCarthy, Joseph}}
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Kennedy Family]]

[[Category:1950s]]

User talk:JacobB

2009-10-08T00:26:27Z

MarcusG:

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:26, 7 July 2009 (EDT)}}

== Blocking ==

It is a good idea to look at "Recent Changes" and post to the Admins who have recently been active. Even if you don't see activity from Jpatt or myself, we usually are alerted to messages left on our talk pages. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:16, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== Please do not move anything..... ==

We don't allow editors to move articles. The reason being is that it wipes all the editing history. Please undo all your redirects and changes (now), and post to my talk page about what you want done. Admins can move and rename pages, which keeps their edit history intact. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:53, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

== Christmas Tree... ==

:From the early contributors, all vandal site members and common trolls, yes, it was a joke. I previously deleted this same "debate" 23 Nov, 2007, and it was recreated. Thanks for noticing and posting, Jacob....it's going to go bye bye. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:02, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
::Glad to hear it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:14, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

== Good Work ==
Vandal page for sure. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:01, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

== Awesome work! ==

Awesome work on the [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]] !!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

== Wow ==

Wow, that's fantastic, JacobB, but please don't get too far ahead. Please work on translating before posting more originals. Thanks so much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== Another budding mathematician? ==

I see on your user page you're headed to math grad school... are you applying in this cycle? Good luck! I just started this term. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:00, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
:I'm accepted to a masters program for the spring already, and I'm planning on getting a PhD, hopefully with work on geometric function theory, that's a big area of interest for me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:04, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

== Jesus Seminar ==

All I was doing was giving readers a quick way to find an alternative to the liberal butchering of the Bible. Not sure why that merits a block or a reversion, but if you're set in your decision, then so it goes. Unfortunate it had to come to threats without any dialogue. [[User:DonnyB|DonnyB]] 00:45, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:It doesn't merit a block or reversion (or perhaps, since I'm new to these privileges, I'm wary of using them). Either way, I don't want this project which attempts to cut up and destroy the Gospels to fit a liberal agenda associated with the Conservative Bible Project, something I'm very involved in. Claiming that the CBP is a conservative version of the Jesus Seminar's blasphemy isn't accurate. Since they are nothing alike, it would be like putting a "See Also: Antarctica" on a page dealing with skirts. That's why it was reverted.
:The block threat was made because I think you realize this, and made this, your first ever edit, in bad faith. But, I'm not sure, and it's wrong it arbitrarily block people. I hope I'm wrong, that you will contribute constructively. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:50, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::Fair enough, perhaps I didn't quite understand Jesus Seminar well enough and found the CBP a similar alternative. But yes, I plan on contributing constructively, and hopefully you'll give me a second chance to make a good first impression :). [[User:DonnyB|DonnyB]] 00:54, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Size of Mark ==

I notice you've been dividing various books to keep the size down. Do you think you could split Mark as well, as it's growing very large as it's translated? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:40, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello, I was Darmientie, and was banned and told to make a new account. I was just wondering why you asked me to do this. Thanks.