Bridge to Barry Movement….. ” In 1957, Senator Barry Goldwater got welcomed national exposure as a guest on the show. Manion talked Goldwater into writing a book that the he thought should be titled a “Conscience of a Conservative.” “
Bridge to Goldwater Movement
The Right Frequency Blog ^ |
April 27, 2013Posted on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:34:38 PM by TeaPartyJakes
Clarence Manion, the retired dean of the Notre Dame School of Law, became one of the most thoughtful conservatives from the mid-1950s through the 1970s.
The “Manion Forum” began broadcasting in 1954 and continued until his death in 1979.
In 1952, Manion would head the “Democrats for Eisenhower” organization. President Dwight D. Eisenhower named him as the chairman of a commission to study how to return to states the power that the federal government had taken away under the Roosevelt and Truman administration.
When Manion did not back away from his support of something the administration opposed, Eisenhower fired him. So he returned to Indiana and began broadcasting. The “Manion Forum” was an early victim of the Fairness Doctrine, when in 1957, the Mutual network feared Manion’s comments on a strike in the Midwest would prompt union demands for equal time
As a pre-emptive measure, they dropped his program. He caused an uproar when he called Social Security a “ponzi scheme.” He decried the cost of Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. He also spoke up for America’s religious traditions.
In 1957, Senator Barry Goldwater got welcomed national exposure as a guest on the show. Manion talked Goldwater into writing a book that the he thought should be titled a “Conscience of a Conservative.”
The book was ghost written by L. Brent Bozell II. But the publishing industry was not receptive, so Manion founded Victor Publishing Company, and the book launched Goldwater’s forward to the 1964 Republican presidential nomination and influenced the politics for generations.
Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 11:00:51 AM by Amerisraelhere
And President Truman has been proven wrong.
But with regard to his handling of the illegal Chinese military involvement and attack against U.S. and allied troops in Korea, Truman was flat out wrong.
The following is from the fourth chapter entiltled “Korea” in the book written by General Douglas MacArthur- “Revitalizing A Nation”:
FrontPage Magazine.com ^ | Feb. 19, 2013 | David Greenfield
Posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 8:07:07 AM by Tugo
During the Bush administration there were only two American commanders of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Under Obama there have so far been five. There has been a new ISAF commander nearly every single year that Obama has been in office. The only exception is 2012 when Obama was too busy trying to win an election to bother further sabotaging a losing war.
Cut Commitments, Not Muscle… “On retirement, Robert Gates said any future defense secretary who advises a president to fight another land war in Asia ought to have his head examined. So why do we have 28,000 U.S. troops in Korea and 50,000 in Japan?”
In that year of happy memory, 1972, George McGovern, the Democratic nominee, declared he would chop defense by fully one-third.
A friendly congressman was persuaded to ask Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to expatiate on what this might mean.
The Pentagon replied the Sixth Fleet might have to be pulled out of the Med, leaving Israel without U.S. protection against the fleet of Adm. Sergei Gorshkov, and provided the congressman a list of U.S. bases that would have to be shut down.
Radio ads were run in the towns closest to the bases on the Pentagon list, declaring they would be closed and all jobs terminated, should McGovern win.
Something akin to this is going on with the impending sequester.
Fastidiousness is never a good sign in a general officer. Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander’s time, our first was MacArthur, who seemed at times to care more about how much gold braid decorated the brim of his cap than he did about how many bodies he left on beachheads across the Pacific. Next came Westmoreland, with his starched fatigues in Vietnam. In our time, Gen. David H. Petraeus has set the bar high. Never has so much beribboned finery decorated a general’s uniform since Al Haig passed through the sally ports of West Point on his way to the White House.
At the Battle of Chosin Reservoir during the Korean Conflict, Marine Colonel (later Lt. General) Chesty Puller told his men “We’ve been looking for the enemy for some time now. We’ve finally found him.
We’re surrounded. That simplifies things.”
We’re surrounded too and that may simplify things for us as well.
English: Chesty puller
Chesty puller (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Colonel Puller’s First Battalion of the First Marine Division, along with many thousands of other allied troops sent deep into North Korea to chase the North Korean forces to and across the Chinese border, had been placed in a nearly impossible situation. General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander, relying only on the information he wanted to hear, had discounted the possibility of Chinese intervention. He had discouraged the development and submission of intelligence on its increasing likelihood. The information was available. However, since he didn’t want it, providing it would have been the path away from rather than toward promotion and he did not get it.
He had [already] been warned by Truman many times, and now received notification that he was to obtain authorization from Washington prior to taking any military action against objectives in Chinese territory. MacArthur’s military plan was to proceed……….
After his fourth-place showing in Florida, Ron Paul, by then in Nevada, told supporters he had been advised by friends that he would do better if only he dumped his foreign policy views, which have been derided as isolationism.
Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?
Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul’s views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain‘s seem to belong to yesterday’s Bush-era bellicosity.
Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.
The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.
The defense budget for 2013 is $525 billion, down $6 billion from 2012. The Army is to be cut by 75,000 troops; the Marine Corps by 20,000. Where Ronald Reagan sought a 600-ship Navy, the Navy will fall from 285 ships today to 250. U.S. combat aircraft are to be reduced by six fighter squadrons and 130 transport aircraft.
Republicans say this will reduce our ability to fight and win two land wars at once — say, in Iran and Korea. Undeniably true.
Why, then, is Ron Paul winning the argument?
The hawkishness of the GOP candidates aside, the United States, facing its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit, can no longer afford to sustain all its alliance commitments, some of which we made 50 years ago during a Cold War that ended two decades ago, in a world that no longer exists.
As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, we must think and act anew.
American Caesar: Douglas Macarthur 1880-1964
American Caesar was one of those books that once you pick it up, you will find yourself flipping through pages deep into the night. Without keeping any suspense, I will flat out say that it was easily among one of the best books I have read.
The author, William Manchester had done extensive research on Douglas MacArthur for this book, detailing every event from his birth at an army fort through his funeral; the bibliography section of the book alone was twenty pages long. The facts dug as deep as the fact that Sarah Barney Belcher of Taunton, Massachusetts was a common ancestor of Douglas MacArthur, Winston Churchill, and Franklin Roosevelt. However, Manchester did not capture readers by merely loading his book with facts. Instead, he captivated readers with his beautiful narratives. Under his penmanship, the horrors of WW1 trench warfare came alive with two simple description sentences at the beginning of chapter two…..
IS OUR MILITARY SET UP TO WIN OR LOSE?
by One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet
(Nov. 24, 2011) — It was called “Unlimited War” and the goal was “Unconditional Surrender” at any cost. It was designed to bring our boys home from Europe and the Pacific A.S.A.P. Everyone down the food chain was sick and tired of the “The Department of War is sorry to inform you that _____ was killed in action” forms that they had to send with a little note telling the mother or wife what a great guy he was and at least he died quickly. But he often didn’t die quickly. Sometimes a best buddy couldn’t take it anymore and ended it all.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said last week that “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” In saying this, Gates was repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War, who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq — none of which had ideal outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?
The Hindrances of Overseas Wars
Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com …
On the morning of July 28, forty protesters tried to reclaim an evacuated building in downtown Washington scheduled for demolition. A riot erupted when city police officers and agents from the U.S. Treasury Department tried to evict some of the marchers. The city’s police chief, Pellham Glassford, a veteran himself sympathetic to the marchers, was knocked down by a brick. Glassford’s assistant suffered a fractured skull. When rushed by a crowd, two other policemen opened fire. Two of the marchers were killed. As the situation spiraled out of control, the District of Columbia asked President Herbert Hoover to send federal troops to help restore order. The request noted that it was “impossible for the Police Department to maintain law and order except by the use of firearms, which will make the situation a dangerous one.”
President Hoover knew he had to curb the escalating violence. Hoover reluctantly agreed, but only after limiting Major General Douglas MacArthur’s authority. MacArthur’s troops would be unarmed. The mission was to escort the marchers unharmed to camps along the Anacostia River. He gave the order for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur to remove the approximately 3,500 veterans, many with their wives and children, who refused to leave. A force of about 600 – cavalrymen and infantrymen with a few tanks – advanced to the scene under the leadership of Chief of Staff MacArthur in person, two other generals, and, among junior officers, two whose names would in due course become much more familiar, Majors Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton, Jr.
MacArthur ignored the president’s orders, taking no prisoners and driving tattered protesters from their encampment. No shots were fired, but many were injured by bricks, clubs and bayonets. After Hoover ordered a halt to the army’s march, MacArthur again took things into his own hands, violently clearing the Anacostia campsite, killing three marchers and wounding many.
One of the first federal officers to arrive in Washington, D.C., was Major George S. Patton. His cavalry troops met up with infantry at the Ellipse, near the White House. Patton and the federal troops, equipped with gas masks, bayonets and sabers, marched up Pennsylvania Avenue, firing gas grenades and charging and subduing the angry crowd. Later that night, Patton and the federal troops cleared out the marchers’ camp in Anacostia, with some tents and shacks catching fire in the process. Although there are conflicting reports on which side started the fires, some of the marchers’ shacks burned down. By the following morning, most marchers had left Washington, but the incident left bitter memories and affected Patton deeply. He called it the “most distasteful form of service” and later wrote several papers on how federal troops could restore order quickly with the least possible bloodshed.
In the end, the presence of federal troops effectively ended the bonus march. The troops cleaned up the situation near the Capitol, and then proceeded with equal efficiency to clear out all of the marchers from the District of Columbia.
The burning shacks of the veterans’ shantytowns made vivid news photos. A national uproar ensued. In far off Albany, New York, Democratic presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt grasped the political implications instantly. “Well,” he told a friend on hearing the news, “this elects me.” Herbert Hoover said at the start of an uphill reelection campaign: “We are opposed by six million unemployed, 10,000 bonus marchers, and 10 cent corn. Is it any wonder that the prospects are dark?”
via 1932 Bonus March.
Congress – Yes, Obama Is Above The Law
Exclusive to Rense
“I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” – General Douglas MacArthur.
As anyone who doesn’t live in a self-imposed coma can see, Americans are beyond frustrated and very, very angry at the Outlaw Congress for refusing to do their constitutional duty regarding the forgery released by Obama/Soetoro, April 27, 2011, purported to be his long form birth certificate.
The charlatans in the “mainstream” media darn n
via Give Us Liberty.
Yet, horrendous as it is, it does not, thus far, compare with that. For the earthquake dead are not 1 percent of those who perished in World War II.
Between 1942 and 1945, Japan was stripped naked of an empire that embraced Formosa, Korea, Manchuria, the entire China coast, all of French Indochina Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies Indonesia, the Philippines and the Western Pacific out to Guam and south to Guadalcanal.
She sustained 2 million military dead and 500,000 to a million civilian dead under U.S. carpet-bombing that reduced her great cities to smoldering rubble and Hiroshima and Nagasaki to atomic ash.Yet, 25 years after the most devastating defeat in modern history, Japan boasted the second largest and most dynamic economy on earth.
Under the proconsulship of Gen. MacArthur, Japan rose to her feet, renounced war and reached an annual growth rate of 10 percent by the 1960s, 5 percent in the 1970s, 4 percent in the 1980s. Smaller than Montana and with fewer resources, she created an economy half as large as the U.S. and in many ways technologically superior.
An extraordinary accomplishment of an extraordinary people.At the end of the 1980s, Japan seemed poised to surpass America.
It did not happen……………
About two years ago U.S. military authorities in Afghanistan bowed the knee in appeasement, confiscated Bibles from a soldier, and had them burned.An action that no doubt would have infuriated the late General Douglas MacArthur.The confiscation of the Bibles and their subsequent “burning” was the U.S. military’s response to a report by Al-jazeera in regards to a U.S. soldier’s Bibles in the native Afghan language.
This was made all the more repugnant in light of the U.S. military’s top General Petreaus warning against the “burning” of the Koran in a protest by an independent fringe church in Florida.The Bibles were in the native Afghan language and were sent by a church to the soldier. Naturally there were complaints from Islamists.But hey, its the “new” Afghanistan, they now have true democratic values such as freedom of speech, religion, and expression. Right? Some have asserted that the U.S. military had no choice because U.S. troops are “invited guests” and must grovel in appeasement on such matters accordingly.
Not so.Our U.S. troops are in Afghanistan because this country was attacked on 9/11 and the ruling Afghan government, the Taliban, was giving sanctuary to Bin Laden and those responsible.No Bibles in the native Afghan tongue would ever have been confiscated and “burned”,– no, not if MacArthur were the General in command.Soon after the surrender of Japan was accomplished and the U.S. occupation commenced, MacArthur reached out to U.S. churches and Bible publishing companies for assistance.Excerpt Read more at amerisrael.typepad.com …
The most notable domestic use of Regular troops in twenty years of peace happened in the nation’s capital in the summer of 1932. Some thousands of “Bonus Marchers” remained in Washington after the adjournment of Congress dashed their hopes for immediate payment of a bonus for military service in World War I. On July 28, when marshals and police tried to evict one group encamped near the Capitol, a riot with some bloodshed occurred. Thereupon President Herbert C. Hoover called upon the Army to intervene
May 30, 2007
Congressman Ron Paul Targeted For ‘Destruction’ By US War Leaders
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
Political scientists from the Russian Political Science Association are reporting today about an ‘unusual’ American Presidential candidate, named Ron Paul, and who is a current US Congressman from the State of Texas, who has so raised the animosity of the United States War Leaders against him that he has been ‘targeted for destruction’ by them.
Though the election for the next American President is not due to take place until November, 2008, the United States procedure for selecting their Presidential Candidates rests upon a series of Primaries where the individual American States select their choices for who will represent them at their Party Conventions.
This type of election system has in the past ‘chosen’, by default, the Presidential Candidates as early as 9 months prior to the actual Presidential election itself.