Posted on Jul 10, 2020
Melrose police investigate 'all lives matter' traffic sign: report
972
2
6
1
1
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
This is the face of modern McCarthyism. The left has become the thought police.And the politics of Personal Destruction once again rule the day. Just say no to the cancel culture. If not the Great Experiment of the American Revolution will come to a sad close.
A Statement by John Howard Lawson [note: This statement was never put into the public record by House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC.]
"For a week, this Committee has conducted an illegal and indecent trial of American citizens, whom the Committee has selected to be publicly pilloried and smeared. I am not here to defend myself, or to answer the agglomeration of falsehoods that has been heaped upon me, I believe lawyers describe this material, rather mildly, as “hearsay evidence.” To the American public, it has a shorter name: dirt. Rational people don’t argue with dirt. I feel like a man who has had truckloads of filth heaped upon him; I am now asked to struggle to my feet and talk while more truckloads pour more filth around my head.
No, you don’t argue with dirt. But you try to find out where it comes from. And to stop the evil deluge before it buries you—and others. The immediate source is obvious. The so-called “evidence” comes from a parade of stool-pigeons, neurotics, publicity-seeking clowns, Gestapo agents, paid informers, and a few ignorant and frightened Hollywood artists. I am not going to discuss this perjured testimony. Let these people live with their consciences, with the knowledge that they have violated their country’s most sacred principles.
These individuals are not important. As an individual, I am not important. The obvious fact that the Committee is trying to destroy me personally and professionally, to deprive me of my livelihood and what is far dearer to me—my honor as an American—gains significance only because it opens the way to similar destruction of any citizen whom the Committee selects for annihilation.
I am not going to touch on the gross violation of the Constitution of the United States, and especially of its First and Fifth Amendments, that is taking place here. The proof is so overwhelming that it needs no elaboration. The Un-American Activities Committee stands convicted in the court of public opinion.
I want to speak here as a writer and a citizen. . . .
My political and social views are well known. My deep faith in the motion picture as a popular art is also well known. I don’t “sneak ideas” into pictures. I never make a contract to write a picture unless I am convinced that it serves democracy and the interests of the American people. I will never permit what I write and think to be subject to the orders of self-appointed dictators, ambitious politicians, thought-control gestapos, or any other form of censorship this Un-American Committee may attempt to devise. My freedom to speak and write is not for sale in return for a card signed by J. Parnell Thomas saying “O.K. for employment until further notice.”
Pictures written by me have been seen and approved by millions of Americans. A subpoena for me is a subpoena for all those who have enjoyed these pictures and recognized them as an honest portrayal of our American life.
Thus, my integrity as a writer is obviously an integral part of my integrity as a citizen. As a citizen I am not alone here. I am not only one of nineteen men who have been subpoenaed. I am forced to appear here as a representative of one hundred and thirty million Americans because the illegal conduct of this Committee has linked me with every citizen. If I can be destroyed no American is safe. You can subpoena a farmer in a field, a lumberjack in the woods, a worker at a machine, a doctor in his office—you can deprive them of a livelihood, deprive them of their honor as Americans.
Let no one think that this is an idle or thoughtless statement. This is the course that the Un-American Activities Committee has charted. Millions of Americans who may as yet be unconscious of what may be in store for them will find that the warning I speak today is literally fulfilled. No American will be safe if the Committee is not stopped in its illegal enterprise.
I am like most Americans in resenting interference with my conscience and belief. I am like most Americans in insisting on my right to serve my country in the way that seems to me most helpful and effective. I am like most Americans in feeling that loyalty to the United States and pride in its traditions is the guiding principle of my life. I am like most Americans in believing that divided loyalty—which is another word for treason—is the most despicable crime of which any man or woman can be accused.
It is my profound conviction that it is precisely because I hold these beliefs that I have been hailed before this illegal court. These are the beliefs that the so-called Un-American Activities Committee is seeking to root out in order to subvert orderly government and establish an autocratic dictatorship.
I am not suggesting that J. Parnell Thomas aspires to be the man on horseback. He is a petty politician, serving more powerful forces. Those forces are trying to introduce fascism in this country. They know that the only way to trick the American people into abandoning their rights and liberties is to manufacture an imaginary danger, to frighten the people into accepting repressive laws which are supposedly for their protection.
. . . .
Today, we face a serious crisis in the determination of national policy. The only way to solve that crisis is by free discussion. Americans must know the facts. The only plot against American safety is the plot to conceal facts. I am plastered with mud because I happen to be an American who expresses opinions that the House Un-American Activities Committee does not like. But my opinions are not an issue in this case. The issue is my right to have opinions. The Committee’s logic is obviously: Lawson’s opinions are properly subject to censorship; he writes for the motion picture industry, so the industry is properly subject to censorship; the industry makes pictures for the American people, so the minds of the people must be censored and controlled.
Why? What are J. Parnell Thomas and the Un-American interests he serves, afraid of? They’re afraid of the American people. They don’t want to muzzle me. They want to muzzle public opinion. They want to muzzle the great Voice of democracy. Because they’re conspiring against the American way of life. They want to cut living standards, introduce an economy of poverty, wipe out labor’s rights, attack Negroes, Jews, and other minorities, drive us into a disastrous and unnecessary war.
The struggle between thought-control and freedom of expression is the struggle between the people and a greedy unpatriotic minority which hates and fears the people. I wish to present as an integral part of this statement, a paper which I read at a Conference on Thought Control in the United States held in Hollywood on July 9th to 13th. The paper presents the historical background of the threatening situation that we face today, and shows that the attack on freedom of communication is, and has always been, an attack on the American people.
The American people will know how to answer that attack. They will rally, as they have always rallied, to protect their birthright."
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, October 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947); “A Statement by John Howard Lawson,” published in Gordon Kahn, Hollywood on Trial (New York, 1948); quoted in Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts from Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968, Eric Bentley, ed. (New York: Viking Press, 1971), 161–65.
A Statement by John Howard Lawson [note: This statement was never put into the public record by House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC.]
"For a week, this Committee has conducted an illegal and indecent trial of American citizens, whom the Committee has selected to be publicly pilloried and smeared. I am not here to defend myself, or to answer the agglomeration of falsehoods that has been heaped upon me, I believe lawyers describe this material, rather mildly, as “hearsay evidence.” To the American public, it has a shorter name: dirt. Rational people don’t argue with dirt. I feel like a man who has had truckloads of filth heaped upon him; I am now asked to struggle to my feet and talk while more truckloads pour more filth around my head.
No, you don’t argue with dirt. But you try to find out where it comes from. And to stop the evil deluge before it buries you—and others. The immediate source is obvious. The so-called “evidence” comes from a parade of stool-pigeons, neurotics, publicity-seeking clowns, Gestapo agents, paid informers, and a few ignorant and frightened Hollywood artists. I am not going to discuss this perjured testimony. Let these people live with their consciences, with the knowledge that they have violated their country’s most sacred principles.
These individuals are not important. As an individual, I am not important. The obvious fact that the Committee is trying to destroy me personally and professionally, to deprive me of my livelihood and what is far dearer to me—my honor as an American—gains significance only because it opens the way to similar destruction of any citizen whom the Committee selects for annihilation.
I am not going to touch on the gross violation of the Constitution of the United States, and especially of its First and Fifth Amendments, that is taking place here. The proof is so overwhelming that it needs no elaboration. The Un-American Activities Committee stands convicted in the court of public opinion.
I want to speak here as a writer and a citizen. . . .
My political and social views are well known. My deep faith in the motion picture as a popular art is also well known. I don’t “sneak ideas” into pictures. I never make a contract to write a picture unless I am convinced that it serves democracy and the interests of the American people. I will never permit what I write and think to be subject to the orders of self-appointed dictators, ambitious politicians, thought-control gestapos, or any other form of censorship this Un-American Committee may attempt to devise. My freedom to speak and write is not for sale in return for a card signed by J. Parnell Thomas saying “O.K. for employment until further notice.”
Pictures written by me have been seen and approved by millions of Americans. A subpoena for me is a subpoena for all those who have enjoyed these pictures and recognized them as an honest portrayal of our American life.
Thus, my integrity as a writer is obviously an integral part of my integrity as a citizen. As a citizen I am not alone here. I am not only one of nineteen men who have been subpoenaed. I am forced to appear here as a representative of one hundred and thirty million Americans because the illegal conduct of this Committee has linked me with every citizen. If I can be destroyed no American is safe. You can subpoena a farmer in a field, a lumberjack in the woods, a worker at a machine, a doctor in his office—you can deprive them of a livelihood, deprive them of their honor as Americans.
Let no one think that this is an idle or thoughtless statement. This is the course that the Un-American Activities Committee has charted. Millions of Americans who may as yet be unconscious of what may be in store for them will find that the warning I speak today is literally fulfilled. No American will be safe if the Committee is not stopped in its illegal enterprise.
I am like most Americans in resenting interference with my conscience and belief. I am like most Americans in insisting on my right to serve my country in the way that seems to me most helpful and effective. I am like most Americans in feeling that loyalty to the United States and pride in its traditions is the guiding principle of my life. I am like most Americans in believing that divided loyalty—which is another word for treason—is the most despicable crime of which any man or woman can be accused.
It is my profound conviction that it is precisely because I hold these beliefs that I have been hailed before this illegal court. These are the beliefs that the so-called Un-American Activities Committee is seeking to root out in order to subvert orderly government and establish an autocratic dictatorship.
I am not suggesting that J. Parnell Thomas aspires to be the man on horseback. He is a petty politician, serving more powerful forces. Those forces are trying to introduce fascism in this country. They know that the only way to trick the American people into abandoning their rights and liberties is to manufacture an imaginary danger, to frighten the people into accepting repressive laws which are supposedly for their protection.
. . . .
Today, we face a serious crisis in the determination of national policy. The only way to solve that crisis is by free discussion. Americans must know the facts. The only plot against American safety is the plot to conceal facts. I am plastered with mud because I happen to be an American who expresses opinions that the House Un-American Activities Committee does not like. But my opinions are not an issue in this case. The issue is my right to have opinions. The Committee’s logic is obviously: Lawson’s opinions are properly subject to censorship; he writes for the motion picture industry, so the industry is properly subject to censorship; the industry makes pictures for the American people, so the minds of the people must be censored and controlled.
Why? What are J. Parnell Thomas and the Un-American interests he serves, afraid of? They’re afraid of the American people. They don’t want to muzzle me. They want to muzzle public opinion. They want to muzzle the great Voice of democracy. Because they’re conspiring against the American way of life. They want to cut living standards, introduce an economy of poverty, wipe out labor’s rights, attack Negroes, Jews, and other minorities, drive us into a disastrous and unnecessary war.
The struggle between thought-control and freedom of expression is the struggle between the people and a greedy unpatriotic minority which hates and fears the people. I wish to present as an integral part of this statement, a paper which I read at a Conference on Thought Control in the United States held in Hollywood on July 9th to 13th. The paper presents the historical background of the threatening situation that we face today, and shows that the attack on freedom of communication is, and has always been, an attack on the American people.
The American people will know how to answer that attack. They will rally, as they have always rallied, to protect their birthright."
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, October 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947); “A Statement by John Howard Lawson,” published in Gordon Kahn, Hollywood on Trial (New York, 1948); quoted in Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts from Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968, Eric Bentley, ed. (New York: Viking Press, 1971), 161–65.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPL Joy Downs Hart - The statement by John Howard Lawson is not fiction. He was grilled by the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was shamefully denied the right to have his statement read into the Congressional Record before testifying, he was denied his fifth amendment rights, and because he would not stick to "yes or no" responses to questions from the committee, the Committee chair refused to hear any testimony, then had him imprisoned for a year for contempt of congress.
Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6441
Post WWII, there was a faction of American society that was so virulently anti-communist that they trampled the American Constitution underfoot. Senator Joseph McCarthy ((R-WI) became the face of that faction. In a matter of a handful of years, hundreds and hundreds of peoples' lives were destroyed. The tactics of today's progressive fringe are the same. The only thing missing is the Congressional committee. I suspect that we will see it in one form or another soon.
I highly suggest the Movie "Trumbo." The social media of the day is seen using the same tactics to smear people and bulldoze opposition. I don't care for communism, but I don't like the idea that the Constitution is disregarded to get the communists. The left is destroying free speech and polite political disagreement.
Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6441
Post WWII, there was a faction of American society that was so virulently anti-communist that they trampled the American Constitution underfoot. Senator Joseph McCarthy ((R-WI) became the face of that faction. In a matter of a handful of years, hundreds and hundreds of peoples' lives were destroyed. The tactics of today's progressive fringe are the same. The only thing missing is the Congressional committee. I suspect that we will see it in one form or another soon.
I highly suggest the Movie "Trumbo." The social media of the day is seen using the same tactics to smear people and bulldoze opposition. I don't care for communism, but I don't like the idea that the Constitution is disregarded to get the communists. The left is destroying free speech and polite political disagreement.
"They Want to Muzzle Public Opinion": John Howard Lawson's Warning to the American Public
Playwright and screenwriter John Howard Lawson, the president and organizing force of the Screen Writers’ Guild and acknowledged leader of the Communist Party in Hollywood in the late 1930s, became the first “unfriendly” witness subpoenaed to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) on October 27, 1947. This followed a week-long session during which numerous studio heads, stars, and others spoke at length about...
(0)
(1)
Maj John Bell
CPL Joy Downs Hart - Your posts have been kind of cryptic. I assume by the down vote I offended you. But I'm really not quite sure how. I believe that what I have written is supportive of our oath to support the Constitution. I would lay down my life to protect the right of ANYONE standing on US soil to peacefully state their opinions and to debate the issues of the day. Whether or not I agree with them isn't even part of the equation for me. If we truly support and defend the Constitution, we must be willing to fight for peoples' right to think and say unpopular things.
Assume that you are writing to someone who is not very bright.
_When you stated that I sound like a fiction writer, that really gave me no idea of what you were thinking? Please explain.
_I also really don't understand the "kind of like RP" comment. Once again, please explain.
_Finally, with what part of my message do you take issue, so strongly that you feel it necessary to cast a punitive vote?
Assume that you are writing to someone who is not very bright.
_When you stated that I sound like a fiction writer, that really gave me no idea of what you were thinking? Please explain.
_I also really don't understand the "kind of like RP" comment. Once again, please explain.
_Finally, with what part of my message do you take issue, so strongly that you feel it necessary to cast a punitive vote?
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPL Joy Downs Hart - Still Cryptic. What I'm hearing is that if I can't understand what you are communicating, you won't explain it to me.
What do you think my message is? Perhaps I have not expressed it clearly. Let me try it this way.
I support the right of the left to air their views, even the extreme left; as long as violence is not part of their message.
I support the right of the right to air their views, even the extreme right; as long as violence is not part of their message.
I support their right of both sides to engage in peaceful assembly and to seek redress for their grievances.
The first amendment codifies and protects our right to say and think things that offend others and challenge the status quo.
I draw the line when there is violence, or the threat of violence against people or property. I do not and will not support that.
Furthermore, I draw the line when it is not enough to engage in civil disagreement. When either side feels it is necessary to engage in the politics of personal destruction; to threaten the livelihood, or tranquility of peaceful daily life for those with whom they disagree; I draw the line.
In the days of the McCarthy era, the right held the power of the media, and abused it.
Today, the left holds the power of the media, and abuses it.
What do you think my message is? Perhaps I have not expressed it clearly. Let me try it this way.
I support the right of the left to air their views, even the extreme left; as long as violence is not part of their message.
I support the right of the right to air their views, even the extreme right; as long as violence is not part of their message.
I support their right of both sides to engage in peaceful assembly and to seek redress for their grievances.
The first amendment codifies and protects our right to say and think things that offend others and challenge the status quo.
I draw the line when there is violence, or the threat of violence against people or property. I do not and will not support that.
Furthermore, I draw the line when it is not enough to engage in civil disagreement. When either side feels it is necessary to engage in the politics of personal destruction; to threaten the livelihood, or tranquility of peaceful daily life for those with whom they disagree; I draw the line.
In the days of the McCarthy era, the right held the power of the media, and abused it.
Today, the left holds the power of the media, and abuses it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next