Rss

  • youtube

Liberal Hypocrisy – The Hollywood Ten and the Friends of Abe

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : January 31, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Government, Humanism

One would have thought that when the IRS (and the Obama administration) got their tail feathers burned in the scandal over targeting conservative groups (through harassment and denial of tax exempt status) the IRS would use a little more caution or at least subtlety in promoting the liberal agenda. Rather, they have taken their cue from President Obama who ignores the constitutional separation of powers in favor of illegal executive orders, bureaucratic bullying, and legitimization of incompetence. And now the IRS need not worry about little things like criminal charges. According to the Wall Street Journal as reported by the Chicago Tribune, the FBI investigation of the IRS “…did not uncover the type of political bias or ‘enemy hunting’ that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions…” [Reuters] So behind this shield the administration and the IRS have doubled-down on their attack on conservatives.

But subtlety is not the liberals’ strong suit in their rush to change society into the image of a humanistic worldview. Given recent cover granted by FBI investigators, the IRS continues its storm-trooper tactics when dealing with conservative organizations. Another example surfaced in recent weeks. Friends of Abe is a relatively small conservative-leaning organization of 1,500 people in the entertainment industry who hold conservative values within the enormous and blatantly liberal industry. To be conservative in Hollywood is to risk marginalization, loss of work, and eventual banishment. Therefore Friends of Abe tends to be a secretive organization except for a few who have chosen to come out of the conservative closet. Quoting the New York Times, Friends of Abe “…keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.” [New York Times]

For two years Friends of Abe has sought tax-exempt status under IRS 503(c)(3) regulations. Last week the IRS requested detailed information about meetings with conservative-leaning politicians such as Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, as well as other matters. Previous demands by the IRS included access to the organization’s security-protected website that included all members’ names, but the organization refused the IRS’s request. Tax experts said that giving the IRS enhanced access to the secured portions of its website would have meant access to the group’s members list. The experts stated that the IRS already had access to the site’s basic level which is usually all that is required. To demand access to Friends of Abe’s security-protected site and by default the names of its members was unusual. [New York Times]

Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, said, “Friends of Abe has absolutely no political agenda. It exists to create fellowship among like-minded individuals.” But for every conservative organization like Friends of Abe, there are a multitude of liberal organizations in the entertainment industry such as People for the American Way that spend millions of dollars a year directly or through affiliates on issue advocacy in Washington and elsewhere. [New York Times]

Few Americans know the history of the late 1940s and early 1950s with regard to the extent of communist infiltration of American government and the rise of anticommunism. The political and cultural fallout of these events came to define the liberal-conservative riff in American life and foreshadowed the culture wars that began in the 1960s. One of the side-stories of that era was the investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) of the influence of the Communist Party within the movie industry.

During the 1930s, the political preferences of people in the movie industry covered the entire spectrum, but there was a strong tendency to lean to the liberal and left. Within this liberal-left community was a strong and active Communist presence that contained several dozen screenwriters who were Communist Party members. Large amounts of money were raised by Hollywood Communists for Party approved political and social causes. Communist influence spread into various unions associated within the entertainment industry and Popular Front causes approved by the Communist Party. Numerous actors, screenwriters, and others in the movie industry were subpoenaed and called to testify before HUAC. Some were friendly and testified as to their observations and knowledge of Communist efforts in the industry. Others, upon advice of the Communist Party, were unfriendly and took a defiant stance toward HUAC. The hostile witnesses charged HUAC with preparing America for fascism and Nazi-styled concentration camps and claimed they had a First Amendment free-speech right to refuse to answer HUAC’s questions. However, federal courts later upheld the right of Congress to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony. [Haynes, pp. 70-73.]

Following the hearings, Congress cited ten of the witnesses with contempt of Congress because of their refusal to answer questions (nine were members of the Communist Party USA and one a close ally). The ten could have avoided prosecution by invoking the Fifth Amendment and thereby refuse to give testimony that might be used against them in a criminal case. [Haynes, pp. 72-73.] The cited screenwriters became known as the Hollywood Ten and a cause célèbre for liberals to the present day.

As a result of the revelations about Communist infiltration and spying within the government and the emerging Communist threat worldwide, Americans were concerned. Mindful of public opinion and its effects on the box office, the major movie studios pledged to not employ Communists. Both Communist and non-Communist witnesses before HUAC who invoked the Fifth Amendment (estimated at 200 to 300) were swept up in the national backlash against Communism. Most of those witnesses who invoked the Fifth Amendment were or had been members of the Communist Party. However, others invoking the Fifth Amendment for whatever reasons became unwitting victims of the movie studios’ blacklist that lasted until the late 1950s. [Haynes, p. 73-74.]

Today, a great majority of the entertainment industry is fervently liberal but denies there is an informal but effective unwritten blacklist of conservatives in their industry just as the hierarchy of American universities will deny there is an omnipresent liberal bias that effectively operates as a blacklist of conservatives in academia.

However, we must not assume moral equivalence between the blacklist of Communists and fellow travelers in the entertainment industry of the 1940s and 1950s and the implicit blacklist of known entertainment industry conservatives of today. Nine of the Hollywood Ten were members of the Communist Party USA which was under the direct and dominating influence of the Comintern (Communist Party International) that trained and guided a network of Communist agents, party members, and spies bent on the overthrow of the American system of government. These were not heroes but traitors. Communism operating in America during the first half of the twentieth century was of the same political and social philosophy that was ultimately responsible for the enslavement of a third of humanity for three-fourths of the twentieth century, the consequences of which were the deaths of millions and misery unparalleled in the history of mankind. And of what are the Friends of Abe and other conservatives guilty? Their sin is to support traditional American values—those values prized by the Founders and woven into the Constitution. Liberals’ targeting of conservatives for their beliefs exposes their pervasive hypocrisy.

Liberalism dominates American culture and the leadership and institutions of American life. But, the end result of liberalism stands in stark contrast to the beliefs of a majority of Americans and the principles upon which the nation was founded. And it is in the end result of liberalism that we find the humanistic worldview and its undeniable linkage to totalitarianism.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Reuters, “FBI doesn’t plan charges over IRS scrutiny of Tea Party: WSJ,” Chicago Tribune, January 13, 2014. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-13/news/sns-rt-us-usa-tax-teaparty-20140113_1_fbi-director-james-comey-irs-cincinnati-irs-scrutiny (accessed January 28, 2014).

Michael Cipley and Nicholas Confessore, “Leaning Right in Hollywood, Under a Lens,” New York Times, January 22, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/us/politics/leaning-right-in-hollywood-under-a-lens.html?_r=0 (accessed January 28, 2014).

John E. Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era, (Chicago, Illinois: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), pp. 70-74.

Something is still broken

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : January 10, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

Julie DelCour’s “Should we license some parents?” is an excellent although heart-breaking summary of the current status of child abuse in Oklahoma and the nation (maltreatment, physical abuse, neglect, and death). [Julie DelCour, Tulsa World, p. G1.] She cites a litany of factors that are associated with child abuse: “…maternal youth and low education, very low income, parental mental health issues, absence of established paternity and the presence of unrelated adults in the household, …[and] parental substance abuse.”

Child abuse and neglect are on the increase and government officials, law officers, sociologists, and concerned citizens want to know why. However, we have already identified the factors associated with child abuse. In spite of new and strengthened child abuse laws, rules, regulations, training, programs, etc., child abuse continues to grow. But, Mrs. DelCour cuts to the heart of the matter when she asks “How do we fix unfit parents and caregivers?” With no answers, she ends her editorial with the melancholy observation that “…something is still broken.”

Could it be that are we merely treating the symptoms and not the disease which causes child abuse? It appears there is a systemic problem much larger than child abuse whose causal factors are merely a microcosm of larger societal issues which, unless fixed, will continue to bedevil and ultimately destroy the American culture that we once knew. The question is not just how does society fix parents and caregivers but how does society fix the individual.

Christian principles were the center of the nation’s cultural vision at its founding and remained so for 150 years. With the abandonment of these biblical principles in favor of a humanistic principles, policies, and practices, we have substantially destroyed the family. The proof is incontrovertible. Even prominent humanists recognize the loss of our fundamental values in American society. One such was Benjamin Spock who championed the humanistic worldview throughout his life. In 1994, four years before the end of his life at age ninety, Spock wrote of his concern as he viewed the harmful effects of society on American children.

…I am near despair. My despair comes not only from the progressive loss of values in this century, but from the fact that present society is simply not working. Societies and people who live in them fall apart if they lose their fundamental beliefs, and the signs of this loss are everywhere. [Spock, p. 15.]

As a result America was losing its way because of “a progressive relaxation of many of our standards of behavior and the souring of many commonly held beliefs.” He listed a number of signs of this loss of fundamental values and beliefs and included the increasing instability of marriage, child neglect through excessive focus on careers, materialism, single parent households, failure of schools, progressive coarsening of the attitude towards sexuality due to mass media, and growth in family violence. [Spock pp. 15-16, 93.] Amazingly, Spock remained oblivious to humanism’s disintegrating effects and did not see that the ills of society are a direct result of nearly a century of humanism’s dominance in American life as it stripped away our fundamental beliefs instilled by a biblical worldview. [Spock, pp. 124-125; Johnson, pp. 404-405.]

In his book The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis captured the essence of this cultural madness brought about by the unwitting soldiers in the army of the “knowledge class” having been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview. [Johnson, pp. 301-302.]

It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals…Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so. All the time…we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible…In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. [Lewis, p. 704.]

Ms. DelCour is right. Something is still broken, but this brokenness involves far more than just child abuse. America is losing its fundamental beliefs. America’s original central cultural vision is held together by the moral capital banked decades ago but is near depletion. Faced with a hostile popular culture and leadership in our American institutions that embrace the humanistic worldview, we are in critical danger of forever losing the central cultural vision established by the Founders—those men with chests.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Julie DelCour, “Should we license some parents?” Tulsa World, January 5, 2014, G1;
“Julie DelCour, A license for parents?” Tulsa World, January 5, 2014. http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/juliedelcour/julie-delcour-a-license-for-parents/article_79378171-a113-5eb8-84b0-84866e50c673.html (accessed January 8, 2014).

Dr. Benjamin M. Spock, A better World for Our Children – Rebuilding American Family Values, (Bethesda, Maryland: National Press Books, 1994), pp. 15, 93, 99, 124-125.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 301-302, 404-405.

C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, The Abolition of Man, (New York: Harper One, 2002), p. 704.

Tis the Season for Secular Silliness

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : December 13, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Humanism

Holiday letter to my secular humanist friends,

The first signs of the holiday shopping season peek from store shelves in September. October’s chill warns that Halloween nears. We must select a costume that tops last year’s. November heralds that most wonderful time of the year—Black Friday. But Oh My! What shall we do with December and that highly embarrassing “other” holiday? You know the one I mean. We once masked it by calling it Xmas. But the X could be misconstrued as a cross. And a cross can be associated with you know who, and that will never do. Now we call that “other” holiday by many names such as Winter Solstice celebration, Festival of Lights, and Winter Carnival. Those are so inclusive, so democratic…so…so generic. (I almost said ecumenical, but that sounds too religious.) With these new names, the holiday season can mean whatever one wants it to mean rather than have a religious meaning crammed down our throats each December. Why must we be subjected to those old-fashioned myths and fables that have lingered for two thousand years? We have Santa Claus!

But there are still millions out there who haven’t gotten the message. They are generally backward, unintelligent, and remain culturally insensitive unlike those of us who have progressed beyond those crude expressions of faith. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to join our shining, non-offensive, tolerant, all inclusive, sensitive secular society.

You hear those sentimental Christians whining every year at this time. They are always hiding behind the Constitution which they say guarantees their religious freedom. Well of course they have religious freedom as long as they don’t flaunt it in public!

We must be ever vigilant and ready to crush any efforts to return to those bad old days. Just a couple of years ago, a group of carolers singing at various businesses in a Silver Springs, Maryland, shopping center entered a U.S. Post Office also located in the shopping center. Dressed in period costumes reminiscent of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” they were only a few words into their first carol when the vigilant and brave Post Office manager rushed into the lobby to stop the indiscretion. “You can’t do this on government property,” the angry manager shouted. He ordered them to leave immediately because there was a Post Office policy prohibiting solicitation. They attempted to explain that they were going to all the businesses in the shopping center. But he would have none of it and insisted they leave in spite of boos from the patrons waiting in line. [Duffy] Even though there was no such policy, this Post Office manager should serve as a role model for that small minority of managers who aren’t so enlightened and have allowed caroling in their Post Offices. Fortunately, our government is filled with like-minded militant secularist bureaucrats rigorously defending society from such unauthorized merriment.

But we can never let down our guard. Just the other day the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives announced that its members would be allowed to use previously banned holiday greetings in official mailings to their constituents. Representative Candice Miller said, “I feel it is entirely appropriate for members of Congress to include a simple holiday salutation, whether it is Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and so on.” [Deaton] Shameful! How could these legislators abuse their franking privileges by including messages of Merry Christmas to thousands of their constituents? Such episodes tend to be contagious and must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Such blatant relapses can cause others to become weak-kneed when banning Christmas from any public display or expression. One example is the Bordentown, New Jersey, Regional School District administration that had banned religious Christmas music at winter public school concerts effective as of October 18th. Less than two weeks later the superintendent backed down after national attention was focused on the school’s ban. The superintendent announced that the religious Christmas music would be allowed for now “…after reviewing additional legal considerations and advice on this matter and the expressed sentiments of the community at large…” However, she promised that, “…the school board will continue to examine the issue to determine how the policy will be handled in the future.” Of course it is always wise to impose these unpopular restrictions on a low-key basis. The school administration should have imposed the restrictions banning religious Christmas music in, let’s say, March. Once policies are established and in effect for a period of time, opposition to those policies can usually be attributed to a fringe element of religious fanatics bent on imposing their religion on others and which violates our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. It doesn’t matter that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution; we know the Founders really meant freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. You see, that Constitution thing can work both ways.

Wait a minute. I must go to the door. No, it can’t be! There are carolers out there singing religious Christmas songs and indiscriminately shouting Merry Christmas right there on the public sidewalk for everyone to hear. Where’s my cell phone? Hello! 911? Send the police. No, better yet send a SWAT team. We are having a major public insurrection right here in River City in direct violation of the Constitution. Hurry! There are children in the neighborhood being exposed to this brazen criminal activity!

I must go. I think I see one of my neighbors putting a nativity scene on his front lawn. Hmmm. Would that violation fall under the city’s building code or advertising ordinance? Where’s my cell phone?

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

J. P. Duffy, “Post Office Manager Throws Christmas Carolers Out into the Cold,” Family Research Council, December 12, 2011. http://www.frcblog.com/2011/12/post-office-manager-throws-christmas-carolers-out-into-the-cold/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

Chris Deaton, “Victory: House members no longer prohibited from saying “Merry Christmas” in official mail,” Red Alert Politics, December 4, 2013. http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/04/victory-house-members-no-longer-prohibited-from-saying-merry-christmas-in-official-mail/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

Billy Hallowell, “N.J. School District That Banned Christmas Music With ‘Religious Origins’ Backs Down,” The Blaze, November 6, 2013. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/06/n-j-school-district-that-banned-christmas-music-with-religious-origins-backs-down/ (accessed December 10, 2013).