➡ The text recounts a surprising incident where the host, Ron Partain, admits to be slightly inebriated during a session exploring Senator Joe McCarthy’s tenure. Partain reads from “The Real McCarthy Record,” discussing McCarthy’s campaign against Communism, and how those accused were allowed due process. No victims were harmed or deprived of rights in the McCarthy hearing, despite public misconceptions, and the host briefly touches upon McCarthy’s high approval rate during the 1950s.
➡ Eisenhower perceived McCarthy’s goal of presidency as a threat and thereby aimed to stop him. McCarthy was investigating into communist subversion in the American army, which led to public scorn and his enemies using this to incite anger towards him. Subversions were also present in the political scenario where a constitutional amendment to protect Americans from potential globalist communist subversion was blocked, signifying a further deep-seated issue.
➡ Senator Joe McCarthy was characterized as a politically savvy manipulator, darting between investigations, creating conflict with his aggressive methods. Meanwhile, notable broadcaster Edward R. Morrow, whom McCarthy had targeted, was able to damage some of McCarthy’s credibility through a calculated television program where he critiqued McCarthy’s speeches. In the midst of this, the controversial case of Annie Lee Moss, alleged to be a Communist Party member, resurfaced, leading to more chaos and controversy for McCarthy. After her denial of any Communist Party membership, it was later found she had committed perjury, reinforcing challenges against McCarthy’s credibility.
➡ In his rebuttal on “See it now,” McCarthy dismissed Murrow’s criticisms and accused him of being a communist sympathizer. Through a highly detailed account, he outlined Murrow’s alleged affiliations with communist groups and activities, and criticized news media for twisting his actions and statements. McCarthy also pointed out the alleged undermining efforts of globally inclined foundations, and the manipulation of education to promote internationalism over American nationalism.
➡ The speaker discusses the long-standing fight against systemic issues that won’t be fixed overnight, the power and influence of the Bilderberg Group, and certain conspiracies connected to U.S. politics. They decide to upload an interview with Norman Dodd to provide more context to their views.
➡ The excerpt presents Dodd’s interview detailing a hidden agenda promoted by tax-exempt foundations since 1945, namely creating a worldwide collective estate controlled by these foundations. Dodd, a former staff director of the Congressional Special Committee investigating these foundations, unveils this truth, shedding light on modern history. Inserts contextual details about the interviewer, the manufacturing industry, the crash of 1929, and Dodd’s varied financial careers.
➡ The text discusses the speaker’s role as the director of research for the Reese Committee in the early 1950s, investigating foundations’ activities that could be regarded as unamerican. This involved outlining the changes in education led by large foundations which were drifting away from principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence. The text also includes a recounting of a conversation with Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation, about altering life in the U.S. to be merged with the Soviet Union, and a report on an investigation into the Carnegie Endowment regarding their discussion on using war as a tool to alter the life of a whole population.
➡ The involvement of the United States in World War I and the efforts post-war by influential entities to control various sectors, such as the State Department, education, and historical narration, leans towards a shift towards collectivism administered with efficient American systems. Objections to the investigation into these alleged actions were raised, notably by the Republican National Committee and the White House, primarily accusing the investigator of anti-semitism.
➡ The text discusses an investigation into large foundations like the Carnegie Endowment and the Ford Foundation possibly controlling education in the United States. The foundations are portrayed as supportive of communism and collectivistic concepts, which they believe could lead to monopolistic benefits. The termination of related hearings is lamented, hinting at political interference and accusations thrown against involved people. The conversation ends with a personal anecdote and sign-off.

Welcome, everybody, to the untold digital channel. My name is Ron partain, and today we’re going to be going back through, or we’ll be continuing our way through St. Joseph of Wisconsin, basically story about Senator Joe McCarthy. So want to apologize. I inadvertently put the starting time as 03:00 p. m. , Pacific, which was, I guess it was 07:00 p. m. Pacific or 07:00 p. m. . Eastern. And I apologize.

No, it was 06:00 p. m. Three is six. Duh. Forgive me, guys. Okay, I’m going to tell you a funny story. I was given a recipe for homemade irish cream and I made some earlier. I made some before and it was actually really good. And I made a little bit more because my buddy came from out of town and my mom actually really liked it. And so I’m like, okay, well, I need to get some more.

Make some more. Well, I did, but I didn’t really realize that I consumed a little too much. And I have to be honest with you, I’m a little buzed right now. So I apologize for that. It was not intentional. I think it snuck up on me. But I’m kind of a lightweight as it is. I don’t drink very much anyway. I don’t want to say that I’m tipsy, but, yeah, I’m feeling pretty good, I guess you might say.

So if I slip up today. Got me a little bit of slack, but I need to get out of here at a fairly decent time. My friend from out of town, I got to take him to his hotel tonight. He’s leaving out early in the morning. And tomorrow morning my little Mr. Winchester is getting snipped. So I have to take him to the vet in the morning. And I wouldn’t have an opportunity to take my budy to the airport.

So I have to do that tonight. He’s going to stay in a hotel anyway. I’m going to do chapters 13 and 14 tonight, and then I think we’ll be able to finish up the remainder probably tomorrow. So with that said, again, I apologize for setting the timer wrong, but hopefully all is well that ends well. So let’s jump in here. And we are now on chapter 13, and we’re going to do a recap of McCarthyism, the final numbers.

All right here. So though the official end of McCarthyism would not come until the close of 1954, Eisenhower’s tactics, which we’ll review in the subsequent chapter to this, would effectively tie McCarthy’s hands for the most of 1954. As Ike’s friends in the fake news beat up McCarthy pretty hard. Now would therefore be the right time and place in this book to review the actual statistics of McCarthyism, real numbers which the countless educated ignoramuses who mindlessly use that stupid term might be surprised to hear for the first time.

A 1987 article appearing in the new american magazine the Real McCarthy record by James Drummy. Drummy, I suppose, provided an excellent summary of the research conducted by authors William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell. The following excerpt appeared in the new american magazine Buckley and Bozell and McCarthy and his enemies state that from February 1952 until January 1, 953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 persons and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46.

Buckley and Bozell pointed out that McCarthy never said anything more damaging about Lachlan Curry, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keaney, Edward Poshniak, Haldor Hansen, and John Carter of Vincent than they are known to one or more responsible persons as having been members of the Communist Party, which is, in each of these instances, true. McCarthy’s record on the whole is extremely good. This is also true of the 1953 54 period when he was chairman of the Senate committee and publicly exposed 114 persons, most of whom refused to answer questions about communism or communist or espionage activities, on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them.

There were no incident or innocent victims of McCarthyism. Those whom McCarthy accused had indeed collaborated in varying degrees with communism and communists had shown no remorse for their actions and thoroughly deserved whatever scorn was directed at them. McCarthy’s committee held 199 days of hearings and examined 653 witnesses. These individuals first appeared in executive session and were told of the evidence against them. If they were able to offer satisfactory explanations, and most of them were, they were dismissed, and nobody ever knew that they had been summoned.

Those who appeared in public sessions were either hardened Fifth Amendment pleaders or persons about whom there was a reasonable, strong presumption of guilt. But even those witnesses who were brazen, insulting, and defiant were afforded their constitutional rights to confer with their counsel before answering a question, something they would not be allowed to do in a courtroom to confront their accusers, or at least have them identified and have questions submitted to them by their counsel and to invoke their first and Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about their alleged communist associations.

Of the 653 persons called by the McCarthy Committee during that 15 month period, 83 refused to answer questions about communist or espionage activities on constitutional grounds, and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, but their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the army, the Navy, government printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, the Veterans Administration, and the United nations.

Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York. 19 of the 83, including such well known communist propagandists as James S. Allen, Herbert Apthicker, and Earl Bowder, were summoned because their writings were being carried in the US Information Service libraries around the world.

Peter Graggis, who appeared before McCarthy, the McCarthy Committee, on March 10 of 1954, said that he had come to the hearing terrified because the press had pointed out that you were very abusive, that you were crucifying people. My experience has been quite the contrary. I have, I think, been very understandingly treated. I have been, I think, highly respected, despite the fact that for some 20 years I had been, more or less, an active communist.

The communist defector James Burnham authored the Web of Subversion, a classic insider study of the communist penetration of the US government. Burnham provides us with his own simpler review of the statistics of McCarthyism, and here are the numbers. Number of persons killed, zero. Number of persons wounded or injured. Zero. Number of persons tortured, zero. Number of persons arrested without warrant, zero. Number of persons held or imprisoned without trial.

Zero. Number of persons evicted, exiled, or deported, zero. Number of persons deprived of due process, zero. Some terror, eh? Conversely, the number of people murdered, wounded, imprisoned, tortured, gang raped, robbed, starved, and exiled as a direct consequence of the treasonous actions of the communist infected. Roots about Truman, state and defense departments run into the millions. Yet there are no such terms as his ism or Hopkins ism or martialism or atchisonism or fuchsism or rosenbergism at all.

Why is that? Well, I guess that was a fast chapter. I wasn’t expecting it to be that. Yeah, let’s see here. Let me go back. Um. Let’s just look at these pictures. Just because it’s kind of the tail end. Because the statistical research and conclusions of Buckley and Bozell and McCarthy and his enemies cannot be denied, fake historians just ignore the actual numbers. Years later, Buckley sold his soul to the new world order and became the establishment’s best known official, watered down conservative with his own PBS tv show.

And this is William F. Buckley. And Buckley actually is a. Buckley was a member of Skull and Bones, if I remember correctly. In fact, let’s just double check that. Let’s see. The 13 most powerful members are skull and bones. Um, let’s see here if. Buckley F. Buckley, class of 1950. So let’s jump down here to chapter 14. And this is from January 54. Gallup poll has McCarthy at the peak of his popularity.

59% favorable, 20% unfavorable. He was an early 1950s rock star. The Republican Party was deeply divided against itself, with half loyal to the official leader, Eisenhower, and the other half to McCarthy. By now it was clear to anyone with eyes to see that Ike was no friend of Joe. He was actually McCarthy’s deadliest, though silent enemy. McCarthy’s popular reference to 20 years of treason. FDR and Truman was amended to 21 years of treason, a clear warning shot aimed at Eisenhower.

Many conservative Republicans were also still bitter over the way that Robert Kaft had been cheated out of the nomination by Eisenhower forces at the 1952 convention. To them, McCarthy was now the national leader in effort to take the political system back from the globalists. Was McCarthy thinking of running for president against Eisenhower as a third party candidate in 56, David A. Nichols, the author of Iken. McCarthy, though an anti McCarthy establishment historian, did an excellent job of researching and exposing the full extent of Ick’s conspiracies to get McCarthy.

Nichols reveals that Eisenhower had repeatedly warned, and Nichols agrees with him, that McCarthy did indeed have his sights on the White House. McCarthy has the bug to run for the presidency in 56. Eisenhower warned his advisors both as a World War II general and as a president and as a president, Eisenhower’s pro red, one world order record was every bit as treasonous as George Marshall’s had been. McCarthy knew it and Eisenhower knew that McCarthy knew it and it would not be afraid to attack another great general with the information.

Anull holds barred third party McCarthy for president campaign in 1956. Uniting the Taft wing of the Republican Party and the anticommunist Democrats and the Catholics would have elevated McCarthy to new heights and created some serious headaches for the globalists. For Eisenhower, in the deep state, which had manufactured his emperor’s robe out of a hole cloth, the time to stop Joe McCarthy had come. Irving Perez was a New York City dentist who was drafted for the Korean War in 1952.

He then applied for and received a commission as a captain in the Army Dental Corps and reported for duty in January of 1953. Originally set for assignment to Japan, but Paris actually or asked for a compassionate reassignment based on his wife’s and daughter’s alleged illness. He was reassigned to Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, as part of his application for his commission, Perez had signed an oath indicating that he had never been a member or of an organization that sought to overthrow the United States government.

When he later completed a detailed questionnaire Perez responded as to a standard questions about membership in the Communist Party with the phrase federal constitutional privilege, a reference to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which protects self incrimination. Although subsequent monitoring failed to uncover any overt wrongdoing by press, fitness reports still described him as a very disloyal and untrustworthy type of officer devoted to the seeding of dissatisfaction.

Due to such suspicions, press case was brought to McCarthy’s attention. McCarthy’s Senate subcommittee subpoenaed Perez to testify. In January 30, 1954. An FBI witness named Ruth Eagle, who was an undercover New York City police officer testified that Perez and his wife had been involved with the Communist Party in the 1930s and Perez had been a leader of the American Labor Party. In defense, the defiant red dentist then cited his Fifth Amendment rights.

Thereupon McCarthy wrote to the secretary of the Army, Robert T. Stevens to demand that Perez’s court martial be court martialed and dismissed. That same day Perez requested that his pending discharge be acted upon immediately. His commanding officer, General Ralph Zwicker or someone below him then granted press an honorable discharge. McCarthy versus General Zwicker. Incredibly, press during this terrible time of red subversion had been promoted to the rank of major shortly before receiving that honorable discharge.

This prompted McCarthy to summon General Zicker to testify before the committee on February 18 of 1954 where, on advice from army council, Zwicker refused to answer some of McCarthy’s questions. Frustrated over Zwicker’s cover up of the press promotion mystery and Zwicker’s statements that undisclosed officer who promoted press ought not to be relieved of duty. McCarthy retorted, any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who says I will protect another general who protects communists is not fit to wear that uniform.

General army secretary Stevens ordered Zwicker not to return to McCarthy’s hearings and the army maintained that press promotion was a very bad mistake. This confrontation with Zwicker, a decorated veteran of World War II was used by McCarthy’s enemies in the Senate and fake news to incite public anger against McCarthy. The fearless senator knew that communists had infiltrated the army and were being protected by highly placed officers and so did President Eisenhower whose as supreme allied commander had served new world order as one of those protector of communists.

Hold on. 1 second, guys, 1 second. Please don’t go anywhere. I’ll be right back. It okay sorry about that. Sorry about that. Okay. Army secretary Stevens ordered not to return to McCarthy’s hearing and the army maintained that press promotion was a very bad mistake. This confrontation with Zucker, a decorated veteran of World War II, was used by McCarthy’s enemies in the Senate. I think I just read this, but anyway, I’m going to continue.

And the fake news to incite public anger against McCarthy. The fearless senator knew that communists had infiltrated the army and were being protected at highly placed and were being protected by highly placed officers. And so did President Eisenhower, who as supreme allied commander had served the new world order as one of those protectors of communists. The Perez case represented for McCarthy a loose thread which could be pulled on to unravel the whole bloody conspiracy right up to the top of the army that generals marshal and Eisenhower had corrupted during World War II.

McCarthy stated that Perez promotion had been ordered by a silent master who decreed special treatment for communists. McCarthy was really becoming dangerous. Now I’ll find it interesting that this is the early 1950s. Guys? Yes, everything’s okay, guys. Sorry, it had to do with my friend who’s getting ready to. He’s packing all of his things and he needed something from me. He doesn’t know his way around my place.

Everything’s good. Sorry, I probably should have said something about that earlier, but it was one of those things that I just kind of had to. I didn’t really have a choice. If I didn’t help him, I wouldn’t be able to help him until after I was done, and then it’d be late. So. Anyway, I just want to touch upon this thing, though, about these people who were communists who were being promoted in the army.

We look now at guys like General Milley and all these officers and how. How all these officers and people in the army, in the military are basically treasonous. Well, clearly there was a lot of stuff that was going on back then too, and we just didn’t know it. So I find it interesting that a lot of this stuff happened back then. It’s rather crazy. Mmm. All right. In 1953, a proposal known as the Bricker Amendment to the US Constitution had been introduced in the US Senate.

The sponsor, Senator John Bricker, Republican Ohio, had also been a strong supporter of his fellow Ohio and the now oh so conveniently dead Robert Taft, and also was a strong backer of Joseph McCarthy. The cursed amendment proposed that no treaty signed by the United States could override the US Constitution or infringe upon the liberties guaranteed to the american citizens in the Bill of Rights. The idea drew the support of the majority of the republican senators and even many Democrats.

The Council of Foreign Relations was quick to denounce the bricker amendment by running a 19 page hit piece in its quarterly journal for the elite foreign affairs CFR man Eisenhower obediently fell into line, fronting for his New York masters and calling the amendment’s backers nuts and crackpots. Ike’s sycophant biographer, Stephen Ambrose, informs us of Ike’s obsession with killing the patriotic initiative. Interestingly enough, it’s Stephen Ambrose who is the guy who’s responsible for a lot of the works that have been made into movies.

In fact, just because I’m in that mood. Let’s see here. Steven Ambrose, see if there’s. Okay, so he was the historical consultant for saving Private Ryan. Ambrose featured in the 73 ITV series the World at War. I remember that. Yeah, actually that’s a long series. It’s like 20 episodes. Saving private Ryan miniseries, Band of Brothers. Let’s see. In addition, Ambrose served as commentator for Lewis and Clark, the journey of the core discovery documentary by Ken Burns, numerous tv shows, Charlie Rose Show, C SPAN, CNN, nBase, NBC Heart, National Geographic, History Channel.

Let’s see. Really? Okay, so mostly the stuff that he did was Banda brothers and saving Private Ryan. But I mean, he’s written a lot of books. A lot of books, and he didn’t cover some of the hard hitting stuff. But anyway, I digress. Again, history isn’t taught with the idea of trying to understand history from the perspective of history. It’s taught with the idea that you are trying to cultivate a belief system within the people.

That’s firmly what I believe. Let’s see here. Eisenhower used all his persuasive powers in stag dinners, at meetings, in private, and correspondence, even on the golf course, to kill the amendment. To circumvent the massive republican support for the amendment, Ike relied upon the work, or replied upon struggling. Tonight, Ike relied upon and worked closely with the utterly contemptible Senate minority leader and future president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was LBJ’s job to strong arm Senate Democrats, many of which had previously supported the Bricker amendment.

And so it came to pass that a perfectly reasonable measure to protect Americans from potential globalist communist subversion from above was killed by Baruch’s puppet president, falling just one vote shy of the necessary two thirds supermajority needed to pass a constitutional amendment pending approval of the states. That is interesting. I was unfamiliar with that. As if a signal had been secretly given, the establishment, fake news commenced firing away at MacArthur from all directions and with maximum force.

No more poison pills, packages in objective sounding bottles. It was 24/7 nastiness from here on out. An excerpt from the article demonstrates the new tone. Senator Joe McCarthy, after a fortnight and mounting frenzy, or Fortnite of mounting frenzy, had built the smallest of mole hills into one of the most devastating political volcanoes that ever poured the lava of conflict and the ash of dismay over Washington. Joe the stoker was still disorganized but quick witted, charging in and out of his Senate office, snatching up telephones, rushing to the Senate floor to answer quorum calls, dictating statements to reporters.

McCarthy has no such broad goals or plans. He does not look far ahead. He buzes from one little investigation to another, drawn by tips from government employees worked up by staff of investigations headed by Roy Cohn, 26 year old counsel for the Senate Permanent Investigation subcommittee, of which McCarthy is chairman. In the course of these headline hunting forays, McCarthy’s manner and methods bring him into conflict with people more highly placed than those under attack.

Most of McCarthy’s famed struggles have begun as encounter battles unplanned by either side. Joe, a master of the impromptu thumb in eye school of fighting, has come out on top in most of these scuffles, especially when his opponents tried to appease him or spar with him or attacked him too hastily without a careful eye for the second half of McCarthy’s one two punch. Nasty stuff. And yet still no mention of any innocent people that McCarthy had actually hurt.

Edward R. Morrow made his broadcasting debut as director of CBS’s european bureau in London during World War II. Murrow’s charmed career later included jobs at CBS, vice president and director of public affairs, radio broadcaster, television producer and host. Following World War II, Murrow worked with the Fred friendly on the radio program hear it now. The program was later converted to a television program, see it now. In a joint effort, Moreau and friendly, in service to CBS boss William Paley ran a half hour program to attack McCarthy.

Morrow masterfully utilized selective editing, playing parts of McCarthy’s speech and then criticizing what he claimed were contradictions. Morrow’s mendacious manipulation before national audience did some damage. I think it’s supposed to be did damage some of McCarthy’s credibility, albeit not as badly as fake historians would have us believe. Morrow closed his show by delivering empty platitudes with an overly dramatic, serious delivery. Watch it on YouTube at Edward R.

Morrow see it now. Let’s check it out, see if we can find it. It march 354 okay, so it’s only like two minutes. I’m not going to watch the whole thing. We’ll watch this one because it’s only like two minutes. No one familiar with the history of his country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating. But the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly.

His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities as a nation. We have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are the defenders of freedom wherever it continues to exist in the world.

But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear. He merely exploited it and rather successfully. Cassius was right. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.

Good night. And good. Interesting. So I’m not going to read this. He just read it himself. Let me my head up here. Back. The following day, the morrow attack was hyped by the rest of the fake news. The curious on and off case of Washington, DC black woman named Annie Lee Moss, one which dated back to 1949, came to McCarthy’s attention. Moss, earlier identified by an FBI informant as a member of the Communist Party had, after an internal army investigation, been suspended from working with classified messages at her Pentagon jobs.

In 1950, she appealed her dismissal based on the claims of mistaken identity and was reinstated. In 1951, McCarthy, after looking into the charges of communist infiltration of the Army’s signal corps laboratories at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey decided to reopen the Moss case. Moss and her attorney appeared before his committee at a session that was open to the public. McCarthy made the headlines with this case claiming that Moss was handling the encoded and decoding of confidential and top secret messages.

Shortly after Moss’s testimony began, McCarthy left the hearing room leaving his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, to question her. Moss, a widow in her 50s, was small and soft spoken woman. She claimed that she rarely read newspapers and had never even heard of communism until 1948. When asked if she knew who Karl Marx was Moss responded to, who’s that? Invoking laughter from the audience she denied all the charges that Cohen levied at her saying, never at any time have I been a member of the Communist Party and I have never seen a Communist Party card.

I didn’t subscribe to the Daily Worker and I wouldn’t pay for it. Cohen’s examination of Moss quickly ran into more difficulty. As the hearings proceeded, both the senators and the spectators made the preference for Moss over Cohen very obvious. When Cohen stated that he had obtained corroboration of Moss’s membership in the Communist Party Democrat senators jumped down his throat and loud applause erupted from the anti McCarthy spectators and reporters.

Senator Stuart Semington then suggested that the case against Moss was probably one of mistaken identity. Moss immediately agreed saying three other women named Annie Lee Moss lived in Washington, D. C. Semington responded, I may be sticking my neck out and I may be wrong but I’ve been listening to you testify this afternoon and I think you’re telling the truth. Again. There was loud and prolonged a pause from the circus of clowns in the gallery.

Cameraman from Edward R. Merles see it now filmed the hearing. The event thus became the subject of yet another antimicarthy tv episode broadcast on March 16, 1954. Recall that the previous week’s hit piece had been Murrow’s famous a report on Senator Joseph McCarthy broadcast. Morrow opened this show saying he would present a little picture about a little woman. Many other journalists, jackals barked at their indignation over the mainstream of Annie Moss too.

John Crosby wrote in the New York Herald Tribune, the american people fought a revolution to defend, among other things, the rights of Annie Lee Moss to earn a living. And Senator McCarthy now decided she has no such right. Reporting on public opinion in Wisconsin, Drew Pearson wrote, wisconsin folks saw her as a nice old colored lady who wasn’t harming anyone and they didn’t like that the senator was picking on her.

Much of the stupid american public bought this poor little old, widowed black woman routine hook, line and sinker. The case, or rather the fake news, misinterpretation or misrepresentation of this case was another small hit on McCarthy’s reputation. Moss would again temporarily lose her job as a result of the McCarthy hearings. But in January of 55, she was rehired to a nonsensitive position in the army’s finance and accounting office.

She remained an army clerk until her retirement in 1975 and died in 1996 at aged 90. Later, evidence against Moss. In 1958, a subversive activities Control board investigated a related case and confirmed earlier evidence that Annie Moss was indeed at the very same was the very same Annie Moss whose name and address had appeared on the Communist Party roles in the mid 1940s. Evidence contained in Moss’s FBI file, not revealed until the file was later released through a Freedom of Information act request identified Moss by name, race, age and occupation and membership lists from two Communist Party branches and receipt records for renewed subscriptions to the Daily Worker.

As even many of today’s liberal publications and fake historians no longer dispute. Poor little bullied and defenseless Annie Lee Moss and denying that she had ever been a communist, had committed perjury. McCarthy and Cohn had been right about her all along. Due to the network’s fairness doctrine policy CBS awarded McCarthy time to defend himself. McCarthy accepted the invitation and one month after Murrell’s original attack appeared. See it now to give his rebuttal.

In his blistering response, McCarthy rejected Murrow’s criticism and counter accused him of being a communist sympathizer. McCarthy closed with an appeal to the viewing public to shun Murrow and CBS. McCarthy on CBS. The Senate Investigating Committee has forced out of government and out of important defense plants communists engage in the soviet conspiracy. And, you know, it’s interesting to note that the viciousness of Morrow’s attacks in its direct ratio to our success in digging out communists.

Now, ordinarily I would not take time out of the important work at hand to answer Morrow. However, in this case I feel justified in doing so because Moro is a symbol a leader of the cleverest of the jackal pack which is always found at the throat of anyone who dares to expose individual communists and traitors. And I am compelled by the facts to say that you, Mr. Edward R.

Morrow as far back as 20 years ago were engaged in propaganda for communist causes. For example, the Institute of International Education, of which he was the acting director was chosen to act as a representative by the soviet agency to do a job which would normally be done by the russian secret police. Mr. Morrow sponsored a communist school in Moscow. In this selection of american students and teachers who were to attend Mr.

Morrow’s organization acted for the russian espionage and propaganda organization known as VoKs, or Vox. And many of those selected were later exposed as communists. Now, Mr. Morrow, by his own commission or admission was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a terrorist organization cited as subversive by an attorney general of the United States who stated that it was an organization which seeks, and I quote, to alter the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

Now, other government committees have had before them actors, screenwriters, motion picture producers and others who admitted communist affiliation but pleaded youth or ignorance. Now, Mr. Murrow can hardly make the same plea. We Americans live in a free world. A world where we can stand as individuals, where we can go to the church of our own choice and worship God as we please each in his own fashion where we can freely speak our opinions and on any subject on any man.

Now, whether we shall continue to live has come to issue. Now, we will soon know whether we are going to go on living in that kind of life or whether we are going to live that kind of life. That 800 million slaves under the communist nomination. The issue is simple. It is the issue of life or death for our civilization. Now, Mr. Morrow said on this program, and I quote, he said, the actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have given considerable comfort to the enemy.

That is a language of our statute of treason, rather strong language. If I am giving comfort to our enemies, I ought not to be in the Senate. If, on the other hand, Mr. Murrow is giving comfort to our enemies he ought to be brought into the homes of millions of Americans by the Columbia Broadcasting System. McCarthy’s rebuttal was later selectively edited by the fake news and fake historians to make him look bad on the program.

Following McCarthy’s appearance, Morrow again took cheap shots at McCarthy at McCarthy’s counter accusations of him. But it wasn’t so much Morrow’s venom that damaged, though by no means destroyed, McCarthy’s public standing and influence but rather the subsequent twisting of events by the fake news. And fake history is little more than fake news that has passed into the rearview mirror. To investigate growing allegations of subversion by the large tax exempt foundations Congress established the Reese Committee.

The Almighty Council on Foreign Relations even came under congressional scrutiny for the first and last time. The committee’s report claimed that the major foundations were heavily funding public propaganda and manipulating education to promote internationalism in a form direct toward world government and derogation of american nationalism. The report also declared that the CFR was in essence, an agency of the United States government, that its productions are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept as it had been with the Bricker amendment.

The globalists, working through their wholly owned media and wholly owned puppet president Eisenhower, who were in turn operated through frontman congressman Wayne Hayes, a left wing Ohio Democrat known for his nastiness, maneuvered to undermine the Reese committee from within. Renee Wormser, counsel to the committee, later wrote that Mr. Hayes told us one day that the White House had been in touch with him and asked him if he would cooperate to kill the Reese committee and kill, or rather allow to fade away.

It was. And the left wing foundations are still up to their dirty tricks of funding human rights causes, educational initiatives and pro democracy movements to this very day, which is why a number of them who were recently kicked out of nationalist Russia and China. Speaking of that, I want to pause here for a second because I find it interesting that in that clip of the speech of his name here.

Let’s see here. Where was it? Okay, this is the word he said. He said, we must remember the accusation, reason or time of cannot defend freedom. But it’s really home. Let’s see. Confusing the mind between. Okay, so it doesn’t say it in here, but it doesn’t say it in here. It doesn’t show it in here. But if you go back and we look at the. Let me see here.

If there’s. It doesn’t have. Shoot, it doesn’t have the, it doesn’t have the transcript. But I want to play. I want to play it because there was something that hit me when he said it and I’m actually going to play it at a double speed and so I can get through it faster because I want to hear it. Internal and the external facts of communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

We must remember always that accusation is not proof and the conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history, in our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend the causes that were, for the moment, on popular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s method to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage in our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to. Right there. He actually said that. And I’m going to slow it down and play it. Listen to what he says here. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to.

He says, a citizen of a republic. I found that really interesting. This is in the 19. This is 54, because everything now is democracy, and these guys are attacking it. So I don’t know. Just find it weird that they said republic and not democracy. Not that I’m giving him any props. I’m just saying. It’s just interesting that his choice of words was interesting. Anyway, I digress. I don’t know.

I thought that was interesting. Let’s see here. Where am I? Here. Where am I? Okay, here we go. This is about the Reese committee. Okay, so this is the. To investigate the. This is the. He talked about the Reese committee here, and he was going to kill the Reese committee. Let me see here. If I can find something, and I may go ahead and upload it again because I think it’s so important.

Let’s see here. Dodd, Norman G. Griffin. Okay. That’s a facebook live. I don’t want that. Here it is. So this is Norman Dodd. Norman Dodd was the chief investigator of the Reese committee. All right. And I’ve uploaded this interview before. It’s dry. Majit regurfit interviews 83 year old Norman Dodd in this rare 1982 interview that exposes the new world order’s infiltration by large corporations that are merging the United States into a world government.

He explains the infiltration of the banking and the infiltration of the public education system. Dodd served as the investigator for congressman Reese’s special committee on tax exempt foundations, commonly referred to as the Reese committee. So I may go ahead and upload that tonight just as a follow up on this, because I think it’s extraordinarily important to understand that when you listen to what Norman Dodd said is freaking nuts.

What they did, I mean, it was crazy. They freely admitted that what they were trying to do was to merge the United States with the Soviet Union. That was what they wanted to do. That was the whole purpose of the tax exempt foundations. And that you got to remember that the tax exempt foundations were formed before the Federal Reserve act and the 16th Amendment, which were done for tax purposes.

So they already knew that these things were coming. I mean, it’s just, it’s. It’s. I mean, it’s. You know, when I say that the. The fight that we’re fighting is, this isn’t anything new. This has been going on for over 100 years. They’ve been doing this slowly and methodically for over 100 years. People who want to say, oh, well, Trump just needs to come in there and just arrest everybody and just need to be done with it.

People have this romantic idea that this whole thing is just going to just be magically whisked away and everything is going to be Kumbaya and happily ever after. And you don’t understand that so many things have been infiltrated and for years, decades, almost a century, if not longer. It’s not like we can just clean this up with one stroke of a brush. This is going to take a mammoth, monstrous effort to do.

And I truly believe if you go back and you listen to what Mike and I talked about last night, it’s like, yeah, well, we believe that the good guys are going to take this thing down and destroy it, and they probably have an idea of how they’re going to rebuild it after the fact. I truly believe that. Cupatri grandma. Hi, Ron. Been watching, but AFK, I’m not sure what that means.

Hope everyone is doing well, including Winchester. Yes. If you guys didn’t notice, if you go back and you watch the very beginning of last night’s St. Joe Winchester made a cameo appearance right at the very beginning. So he just was not very happy. Away from keyboard. Gotcha. Thank you. I didn’t know what that meant there. Keep your grandma. So anyway, so I probably will go ahead and upload the Norman Dod interview immediately after this, because I think it’s important to listen to that again with a new set of ears after you hear this, because it’s a big deal.

Very big deal. All right. May 54. The Bilderberg group is an annual, unofficial, invitation only conference of about 150 elite globalists from America and Europe. All of the existing guests at the exclusive resorts are notified to leave before the Bilderbergers arrive in town. The Bilderberg one worlders are people of great influence in the fields of politics, banking, intelligence, business, military and media. The secret conferences are held in a different location every year.

No press releases are issued. The group takes its name from the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland, where the first meeting was held. Members of the Rothschild and Rockefeller crime dynasties have attended every year since its inception. Club Bilderberg has a history of inviting little known politicians and then catapulting them to fame and office within a short time. For example, Bill Clinton attended a 1991 builder brick meeting in Germany.

While he was barely known as a governor of Arkansas, the following year he was media hyped into the White House. I’m going to pause that for a second here, because I have just kind of a story and I think I’ve told it in the past, but it bears repeating right now. I have a good friend of mine who I used to do gun shows with. He lives up in northern Arizona.

Just kind of a rustic guy now. But at one point in time he was a fairly influential individual in New York. And he was in a board meeting in New York sometime in the time of 1991 or 1992. And he remembers very vividly sitting in this board meeting. He wasn’t at the table. He was sitting around the chairs outside on the perimeter of the inside of the building.

And somebody made a statement in there about how when Clinton was going to be president, Clinton was going to be president. And he raised his hand and he said, what do you mean Clinton’s going to be president? Election hadn’t even happened yet. And everybody kind of looked around. One of the guys said, it’s already been decided, Mike, sit down. It’s already been decided. Clinton’s going to be the, he, he tells me this mean it’s don’t, I don’t have any verifiable proof of, you know, he had no reason to lie to me and he was very convincing when he told it to me and I just kind of stood there with my jaw open.

But I also believe that Bush threw that know, and when you think about what they needed in terms of timeframe, that it was conducive for Bush to lose that election and give Clinton the presidency for eight years and make sure that the Bushes were in office or that the neocons were in office for 2000 to make sure that they were in place for 911 to occur. So that actually, to me there’s a lot of synchronicity there.

And that actually makes sense to me. Now, whether or not that’s true, I don’t know. I’m not going to say it. That’s with absolute certainty. I don’t have any evidence of that. But just doing what I do with pattern analysis and kind of putting pieces together that fit, that fits and that makes sense to me. So whether or not it’s true, I don’t know, but it sure makes sense to anyway.

On we go. The bilderbergers are relatively well known among modern day conspiracy theorists. What is not well known is that it was President Eisenhower who used the powers of his office, including the CIA, to initiate this annual criminal conference of the new world order that still is going strong today. The first meeting touched upon McCarthyism. European participants expressed worry over what was going on in America. C. D.

Jackson, a member of the CFR reassured the international delegates that McCarthy’s days were numbered. According to establishment, author and friend of Eisenhower, Alden Hatch Jackson stated, whether McCarthy dies by an assassin’s bullet or is eliminated in the normal american way of getting rid of boyles on body politics, I prophesy that by the time we hold our next meeting he will be gone from the american scene. I didn’t know that Ike was the person who started the Bilderberg meetings.

That is very interesting. And what was really a tactical counterattack against McCarthy? United States army command, Eisenhower’s henchman, claimed that McCarthy was using his search for Reds in the military to win favor for David Shine, a McCarthy committee aide who had been drafted into military service. The artificially engineered dispute, exactly as planned, led to the convening of the Army McCarthy hearings. During the televised hearings, army lawyers assertively pursued Cohn over the favor over favors allegedly granted to shine.

Cohn was visibly nervous during the hearings, probably less so about any wrongdoing and more so over the fact that he and shine were secret homosexuals. Cone died of AIDS in 1986. A few months into the hearings, when it came to McCarthy’s attention that one of the army’s lawyers, Fred Fisher, was a known member of a notorious communist legal front group known as the National Lawyer Guild, McCarthy masterfully turned the tables of the army lawyers and placed them on the defensive, as he had previously done with his queries, into the mysterious promotion of communist Captain Perez.

McCarthy had once again grabbed hold of a loose thread which threatened to unravel something really big and really bad at work within the upper ranks of the US army. It would take a now famous theatrical act, pumped up and repeatedly rebroadcast by tv fake news and print fake news to save Eisenhower from having the televised hearings backfire on him. Okay, well, that’s chapter 15, so that’s chapter 14.

And guys, like I said, I’m going to have to cut it short tonight just because of. Because of time constraints. But before I leave, I’m going to go ahead and upload the video of. What am I trying to say? I’m going to upload the video of the Norman Dodd interview so you guys can have that to watch. It will be actually, you know, what I may even do is I may even just do that as a live because I think I can control that from the road.

I can actually end the stream from the road. So I’m going to go ahead and do that. I’m going to go ahead and set up a live stream and go ahead and just play it live and then I will be able to manipulate it from a different location from when I’m out there on the road. So stand by. You know what? You know what? I’m not even going to do that.

I’m just going to go ahead and just add it to the end of this. So hold on 1 second here. Let me pull it up. No time like the present. So you guys who were here late, you’re going to get to see the last half of this is going to be Norman Dodd speaking about the wreaths committee. Find the Norm Dodd interview that I have here. Welcome to the.

Okay, that’s the wrong one here. Griffin, that was actually. Let me see here. This is mine. Welcome to the mic. The federation gives in. Prairie event. Prairie event. The story. All right, here we go. American gem. So enjoy. All right, here we are. So I am going to be taking off here in a minute, but I’m going to go ahead and play this so you guys can watch it.

This again is Norman Dodd and the interview that Georg Griffin did with him about the Reese committee. Because in chapter 14 of this book we talked about the Reese committee and I think it would be very apropos to incorporate this into this section because I think you’ll have a little bit more. It’ll give a lot more color and depth and understanding into what I just read. So with that said, guys, enjoy this.

The story you are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history. Without this knowledge, many contemporary events are simply beyond understanding. You are about to hear a man tell you that the major tax exempt foundations of this land, since at least 1945, have been operating to promote a hidden agenda. And that agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works, or philanthropy.

This man will tell you that the real objectives include the creation of a worldwide collective estate, including the Soviet Union, which is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which now control the tax exempt foundations. The man who tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd, who in 1954 was the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax exempt foundations, sometimes referred to as the Reese Committee in recognition of its chairman, Congressman Carol Reese.

The interview you are about to see was conducted by me in 1982. I had no immediate use for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd’s story was of extreme importance. And since he was advanced in age and not in good health, I simply wanted to capture his recollections on videotape while he was still with us. It was a wise decision, because Mr. Dod did pass away just a short time afterward.

In recent months, there has been a resurgence of interest in the substance of Mr. Dodd’s story, and we have decided to make it available to the general public. And so what now follows is the full, unedited interview broken occasionally only for a tape change or to emit the sound of a passing airplane. It stands on its own as an important piece in the puzzle of modern history. Mr.

Don, guys, real quick, I just wanted to say, since before I leave, I apologize for this. I don’t have a really choice. For those of you who are just tuning in late, I’ve got to take my budy to the airport or to his hotel tonight and then to the airport. It’s raining in California. So anyway, just wanted to do that. Tomorrow night we will be finishing the. Tomorrow night we will be finishing the book.

Anyway, again, I think you will get a lot out of this, so I just wanted to make that final appeal to definitely listen to this. So see you guys tomorrow. Let’s begin this interview by a brief statement for the record, telling us who you are, what your background is, and your qualifications to speak on this subject. Well, Mr. Griffin, as for who I am, I am, just as the name implies, an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover, Massachusetts, and then Yale University.

And running through my whole period of being brought up and growing up, I have been an indefatigable reader, and I have had one major interest, and that was this country, as I was led to believe it was originally founded. And I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated, and realized that the only way to find out what that world consisted of would be to become part of it.

And I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world and then in the world of international communication, and finally chose banking as the field I wish to devote my life to. And I was fortunate enough to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York and lived there. I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929, and I witnessed what is tantamount to a collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.

And much to my surprise, I was confronted by my superiors. In the middle of the panic in which they were immersed. I was confronted with the question, Norm, what do we do now? I was 30 at the time, and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon. However, I did manage to say to my superiors. Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof there’s something that you do not know about banking, and you better go find out what that something is and act accordingly.

Four days later, I was confronted by the same superiors with a statement to the effect that, Norm, you go find out. And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment because it meant that you were going out to search for something and nobody could tell you what you were looking for. But I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented to. I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank.

And two and a half years later, I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment. And so I rendered such a report. And as a result of the report I rendered, I was told the following, norm, what you’re saying is we should return to sound banking. And I said, yes, in essence, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Whereupon I got my first shock, which was a statement from them, to this effect, we will never see sound banking in the United States again.

And they cited chapter and verse to support that statement. And what they cited was as follows. Since the end of World War I, we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests. And they are so prevalent inside this country that they can never be resolved. This came to me as an extraordinary shock, because the men who made the statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country.

The bank of which I was a part was spoken of as a Morgan bank. And coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me. And the type of impression that it made on me was I wondered if I, as an individual and what they call a junior officer of the bank, could, with the same enthusiasm, foster the progress and the policies of the bank.

I spent about a year trying to think this out and came to the conclusion that I would have to resign. I did resign, and as a consequence of that, had this experience. When my letter of resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he sent for me, and I came to visit with him, and he stated to me, norm, I have your letter, but I don’t believe you understand what’s happened in the last ten days.

I said, no, Mr. Cochrane, I have no idea what’s happened. Well, he said, the directors have never been able to get your report to them out of their mind, and as a result, they have decided that you, as an individual, must begin at once, and you must reorganize this bank in keeping with your own ideas. And he then said, now, can I tear up your letter? And inasmuch as what had been said to me was offering me at the age of, by then 33, about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I could imagine, I said yes.

And they said they wished me to begin at once. And I did. And suddenly, in the span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do another piece of work. And every time I brought the subject up, I was kind of patted on the back and said and told, stop worrying about it, Norm. Pretty soon you’ll be a vice president and you will have quite a handsome salary and ultimately be able to retire on a very worthwhile pension.

In the meantime, you can play golf and tennis, the arts content on weekends. Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I couldn’t do it. I spent a year with my figuratively, my feet on the desk doing nothing, and I just couldn’t adjust to it. So I did resign. And this time my resignation stuck. And then I got my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of every bank in the United States were closed to me, and I never could get a job, as it were, in a bank.

So I found myself for the first time since I’d graduated from college out of a job. And from there on, I followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from investment council to membership of the stock exchange, and finally ended up as an advisor to a few individuals who had capital funds to look after. In the meantime, my major interest became very specific, which was to endeavor by some means of getting the educational world to actually, you might say, teach the subject of economics realistically and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterize our country.

And I have had that interest. And you know how, as you generate a specific interest, you find yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests. And ultimately, I found myself kind of the center of the world of dissatisfaction with the direction that this country was headed. And that’s on one direction. And the same way I found myself in contact with many individuals who, on their own, had done a vast amount of studying and research in areas which were part of the problem.

If I may interrupt here for a second. At what point in your career did you become connected with the Reese committee? 1950, 319 53. And what was that capacity, sir? That was the capacity of what they call director of research for the Reese committee. Can you tell us what the Reese committee was attempting to do? Yes, I can tell you. It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled unamerican without, I might say, defining what they meant by unamerican.

But that was the resolution. And the committee had then the task of selecting a council, and the council in turn had the task of selecting a staff, and he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff. And that was what they meant by the director of research. What were some of the details, the specifics that you told the committee at that time? Well, Mr.

Griffin, in that report I specifically, number one, defined what was to us what was meant by the phrase unamerican. And we defined that in our way as being a determination to effect changes in the country by unconstitutional means. We have plenty of constitutional procedures assuming that we wish to affect a change in the form of government or that sort of thing. And therefore any effort in that direction which did not avail itself of the procedures which were authorized by the constitution could be justifiably called unamerican.

That was the start of educating them up to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country as a whole of the activities of large endowed foundations over the then past 40 years. What was that effect, sir? That effect was to orient our educational system over, away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of independence and implemented in the constitution, and educated them over to the idea that the task now was as a result of the orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self evident truths.

And that’s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of 50 years and holding them responsible for this change. And what we were able to bring forward was that what we had uncovered was the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, to actually get control over the content of american education.

There’s quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Would you please tell us who he was? And what was that conversation you had with Rowan Gaither was at that time president of the Ford foundation, and Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. And on arrival, after a few amenities, Mr.

Gaither said, Mr. Dod, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly off the record, you would tell us why the congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves. And before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and stated, he said, Mr. Dodd, all of us that have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration after the war.

We’ve had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is? I said, yes, Mr. Gesser, I’d like very much to know. Whereupon he made this statement to me, namely, Mr. Dod. We are here operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.

Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair. Of course it didn’t. But my response to Mr. Gaither then was, or, Mr. Gaither, I can now answer your first question. You forced the congress of the United States to spend $150,000 to find out what you’ve just told me. So why don’t you? I said, of course, legally you’re entitled to make grants for this purpose, but I don’t think you’re entitled to withhold that information from the people of the country to whom you’re indebted for your tax exemption.

So why don’t you tell the people of the country that’s what you told me? And his answer was, we would not think of doing any such thing. So then I said, well, Mr. Gaither, obviously you forced the Congress to spend this money in order to find out what you’ve just told me. Mr. Dodd, you have spoken before about some interesting things that were discovered by Catherine Casey at the Carnegie Endowment.

Can you tell us that story, please? Yes, I’m glad to. Mr. Griffin, this experience that you have just referred to came about in response to a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment for international peace, asking certain questions and gathering certain information. And on the arrival of that letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then president of the Carnegie Endowment, telephoned me and said, did I ever come up to New York? And I said, yes, I did, more or less each weekend.

And he said, well, when you’re next year, will you stop in and see us? Which I did. And again, on arrival at the office of the endowment, I found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the president who was a successor to Alger Hiss, two vice presidents and their own counsel, a partner in the firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. And Dr. Johnson said after again, amenities. Mr.

Dod, we have your letter. We can answer all those questions, but it’d be a great deal of trouble. And we have a counter suggestion. And our counter suggestion is that if you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks and send that member up to New York, we will give to that member a room in the library and the minute books of this foundation since its inception.

And we think that whatever you want to find out or the Congress wants to find out, will be obvious from those minutes. Well, my first reaction was they lost their mind. I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain. But I realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years, and the vice presidents were relatively young men, and council seemed to be also a young man.

And I guessed that probably they’d never read the minutes themselves. And so I said I had somebody, I would take it, I would accept their offer. And I went back to Washington and I selected the member of my staff who was on my staff, having been a practicing attorney in Washington, but she was on my staff to precede to it that I didn’t break any congressional procedures or rules.

In addition to which, she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation. She was a level headed and a very reasonably brilliant, capable lady. And her attitude toward the investigation was what could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good. Well, in the face of that sincere conviction of Catherine’s, I went out of my way, not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that she couldn’t possibly cover 50 years of handwritten minutes in two weeks, so she would have to do what we call spot reading.

And I blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on north. She went to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks with the following in the way of on dictaphone belts. We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie began operations. And in that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question which they discuss throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion.

And the question is, is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end, is known to humanity. So then in 19 nine, they raised a second question and discussed it. Namely, how do we involve the United States in a war? Well, I doubt at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war.

There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans was. Then finally they answer that question as follows. We must control the State Department. And then that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country. And finally they resolve to aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war which would have been World War I. And at that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over. At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out.

And they arrive at that point, they come to the conclusion that to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States. And they realize that that’s a pretty big task. So to them, it is too big for them alone. So they approach the Rockefeller foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller foundation, and that portion which is international, should be handled by the endowment.

And they then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the. In alteration of the teaching of american history. So they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of american history in the country, people like Charles and Mary Bird. And their suggestion to them is, will they alter the manner in which they present this subject? And they get turned down flat. So they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, build our own stable of historians.

And then they approach the Guggenheim foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say, when we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of american history and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is yes. So under that condition, eventually they assemble 20, and they take this 20 potential teachers of american history to London, and there they’re briefed into what is expected of them when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.

And that group of 20 historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical association. And then, toward the end of the 1920s, the endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to what can this country, can it look forward to in the future? And that culminates in a seven volume study book study, the last volume of which is, of course, an essence summary of the contents of the other six.

And the essence of the last volume is the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic american efficiency. That’s the story that ultimately grew out of, and of course, was what could have been presented by the members of this congressional committee to the Congress as a whole for just exactly what it said. They never got to that point. This is the story that emerged from the minutes of the Carnegie con.

That’s right. Carnegie dominance. That’s right. It was official to that extent. And Catherine Casey brought all of these back in the form of dictated notes or verbatim reading of the minutes on dictaphone belts. Are those in existence today? I don’t know, but if they are, they’re somewhere in the archives under the control of the Congress House of Representatives. How many people actually heard those? Or were they typed up transcripts made of them? How many people actually heard those? Oh, three, maybe.

Myself, my top assistants, and Catherine. Yeah. I might tell you this experience, as far as its impact on Catherine Casey was concerned, was she never was able to return to her law practice. If it hadn’t been for Carol Reese’s ability to tuck her away on a job with the Federal Trade Commission, I don’t know what would have happened to Catherine. But ultimately, she lost her mind as a result of it.

Terrible shock. It’s a very rough experience to encounter proof of these kinds. Mr. Dodd, can you summarize the opposition to the committee, the Reese committee, and particularly the efforts to sabotage the committee? Well, they began right at the start of the work of an operating staff, Mr. Griffin, and it began on the day in which the committee met for the purpose of consenting to or confirming my appointment to the position of director of research.

Thanks to the abstention of the minority members of the committee, that is, the two democratic members from voting. Why? Technically, I was unanimously. But wasn’t the White House involved in opposition? Not at this particular point, sir. Mr. Reese ordered council and myself to visit Wayne Hayes. Wayne Hayes was the ranking minority member of the committee. As a. So we. Council and I had to go down to Mr.

Hayes’office, which we did. Mr. Hayes greeted us with the flat statement directed primarily to me, which was that I am opposed to this investigation. I regard it as nothing but an effort on the part of Carol Reese to gain a little prominence. So I’ll do everything I can to see that it fails. Well, I am kind of a strange personality in the sense that a challenge of that nature interests me.

Our council withdrew. He went over and sat on a couch on Mr. Reese’s office and pouted. But I sort of took up this statement of Hayes as a challenge. And set myself the goal of winning him over to our point of view. And I started by noticing on his desk that was a book. And the book was the type that there are many these days. That would be complaining about the spread of communism in Hungary, that type of book.

And this meant to me that at least Hayes read a book. And so I brought up the subject of the spread of the influence of the soviet world. And for 2 hours discussed this with Hayes. And finally ended up with his rising from his desk and saying, norm, if you will carry this investigation toward the goal as you’ve outlined it to me, I’ll be your biggest supporter. I said, Mr.

Hayes, I can assure you that I will not double cross you. Subsequently, Mr. Hayes sent word to me that he was in the Bethesda hospital. With an attack of ulcers. And would I come and see him, which I did. He then said, norm, the only reason I’ve asked you to come out here. Is I just want to hear you say again, you will not double cross me. I gave him that assurance, and that was the basis of our relationship.

Meantime, council took the attitude expressed in these words. Norm, if you want to waste your time with this guy, as he called him, you can go ahead and do it. But don’t ever ask me to say anything to him under any condition, on any subject. So, in a sense, that cleared Zex for me to operate in relation to Hayes on my own. And as time passed, Hayes offered friendship, which I hesitated to accept because of his vulgarity.

And I didn’t want to get mixed up with him socially under any condition. Well, it was our relationship for about three months. And then eventually, I had occasion to add to my staff. And as a result of adding to my staff a top flight intelligence officer, both the Republican National Committee and the White House were resorted to. To stop me from continuing this investigation in the direction Carol Reese had personally asked me to do, which was to utilize this investigation, Mr.

Griffin. To uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr. Reese’s conviction. I eventually agreed to carry it out. I explained to Mr. Reese that his own counsel wouldn’t go in that direction. He gave me permission to disregard our own counsel, and I had then to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office, more or less secret. And the Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing and they did everything they could to stop me.

They appealed to counsel to stop me, and finally they resorted to the White House. Was their objection because of what you were doing or because of the fact that you were doing it outside of the official auspices of the committee? No, their objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they call anti semitism. That was a cooked up idea. In other words, it wasn’t true at all.

But anyway, that’s the way I expressed it and they made it stick. Why did they do that? How could they say that? Well, they could say it, Mr. Griffin, but they had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop the completion of this investigation in the direction that it was moving, which would have been an exposure of this Carnegie endowment story and the Ford foundation and the Guggenheim and the Rockefeller foundation, all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States.

Well, in any event, to secure the help of the White House in the picture, they got the White House to cause the liaison personality between the White House and the hill, a major person to go up to Hayes and try to get him to, as it were, actively oppose what the investigation was engaged in. And Hayes very kindly then would listen to this visit from major persons. Then he would call me and say, norm, come up to my office.

I have a good deal to tell you. I would go up, he’d tell me, I have just had a visit from major person and he wants me to break up this investigation. So I then say, well, Wayne, what did you do? What did you say to him? He said, I just told him to get the hell out. And he did that three times. And I got pretty proud of him in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up.

And we finally embarked upon hearings at Hayes request because he wanted to get them out of the way before he went abroad. The. But why were the hearings finally terminated? What happened to the committee? What happened to the committee or the hearings? The hearings. The hearings were terminated. Carol Reese was up against such a furor as Hayes through the activity of our own counsel. Hayes became convinced that he was being devil crossed and he put on a show in a public hearing room.

Mr. Griffin, that was an absolute disgrace. And he called Carol Reese publicly, every name in the book. And Mr. Reese took this as proof that he couldn’t continue the hearings, he actually invited me to accompany him when he went down to Hayes’office. And in my presence, with the tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carol Reese for every done and his conduct and apologized to me. And I thought that would be enough and Carol would resume, but he never did.

The charge of anti Semitism is kind of intriguing to me. What was the basis of that charge? What basis for it at all? No. The basis that the Republican National Committee used was that the intelligence officer I’d taken on my staff when I oriented this investigation to the exposure and proof of a conspiracy, was known to have a book, and the book was deemed to be anti semitic.

This was childish, but this was the second in command of the Republican National Committee. And he told me I would have to dismiss this person from my staff. Who was that person, sir? Who was that person? The person? Yes, a Colonel Lee Lorraine. Lee Lorraine, yeah. And what was his book, do you recall? The book they referred to was called Waters flowing eastward, which was a very castigation of the jewish influence in the world.

What were some of the other charges made by Mr. Hayes against Reese? Oh, just that Mr. Reese was utilizing this investigation for his own prominence inside the House of Representatives. That was the only charge Hayes could think of. How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations, the big foundations, in the very beginning? What was their motivation? Their motivation? Well, let’s take Mr. Carnegie as an example.

His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted to just putting the pieces back together again. Would that have required the collectivism that they were? No. No, these policies or the foundation’s allegiance to these un american concepts, all traceable to the type, to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of trustees, Mr. Griffin. Not men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment or as a use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.

It was a subversion of the original intent then? Oh, yeah, completely so. And that we got into the world traditionally of bankers and lawyers. How do you see that? The purpose and direction of the major foundations has changed over the years to the present. What is it today? 100% behind meeting the cost of education, such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of the United States.

On the subject of our history has proven our original ideas to be no longer practical. The future belongs to a collectivistic concept, and there’s just no disagreement on this. Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States? Well, because to them, what communism represents, a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is the organization will say, of large scale industry into an administerable unit.

Do they think that they will be one of, they will be the beneficiaries of it? Yes. Do it. Hey, everybody. Let’s see here. Let me remove. No, see, I want this guy here. Hope you can see me. I’m in the car and driving. But anyway, I’m going to go ahead and kill the video. I hope you guys got a lot out of that. Apologize for the herky jerky look of this at the end.

But if you listen to really closely what Norman Dot said, and that was 1982, keep in mind that was 40 years ago. It’s bad. It’s been bad for a long time. Anyway, I hope you all have a really great night, and tomorrow we will go ahead and finish the St. Joseph of Wisconsin. So good night, everybody. .