Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes Was Investigated By The FBI

The U.S. Federal Investigation Bureau released records it was keeping on celebrated journalist and late ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent Mike Wallace, who died on April 7, 2012, at the age of 93.

The files include a look into whether Wallace was involved in communist activities as well as an investigation of a threatening letter sent to him by an emotionally disturbed World War II veteran titled ‘Communist Control of the Press.’

Wallace, late ’60 Minutes’ creator Don Hewitt and three others took a trip to Cuba in the summer of 1970 to document the country, according to the files.

The group departed from Mexico with 22 pieces of luggage weighing about 770 pounds and returned with 26 pieces of luggage weighing about 904 pounds. An educated guess would be Cuban cigars, other souvenirs or additional camera tape from the embargoed island.

Wallace, who was 52 at the time, was not discovered to be a communist member or sympathizer.

A separate investigation into a bizarre and threatening letter from April 4, 1977, identified the sender as Donald P. Hale — a disabled World War II veteran and a former prisoner of war.

‘I have solid proof that you are a pro-communist anti-American traitor,’ the letter reads. ‘We will expose you, convict you, and hang you.’

Hale’s letter also includes references to his dog puking on the rug and ‘piddling’ in Wallace’s eye through the television screen.

The U.S. Attorney’s office decided against prosecuting Hale for extortion, stating that his letter did not appear to have criminal intent and that Hale told investigators he meant no harm and was suffering from ’emotional problems.’

Read more here.

Confessions of a former communist

I have a confession to make.

It might help explain why I fear a second term of Barack Obama so much.

I understand what Obama is and what he is doing because I was once like him: I am a former communist.

As a youth growing up during the Vietnam War, I was influenced by some of the more extreme, anti-American opposition to that conflict and began to identify with the enemy. I became convinced the U.S. epitomized all that was evil in the world.

During high school, I was arrested in what we called “anti-war demonstrations” that should be more accurately termed “anti-American riots.” Just like Obama, my youthful radicalism attracted the attention of powerful and influential people in the country. I was recruited for full-ride scholarships at colleges like Antioch, known for grooming the next generation of leftists. When I got into trouble for refusing to salute the flag, the American Civil Liberties Union was there, johnny-on-the-spot, to defend me and bring the school principal to his knees.

During the euphemistically named “Indo-China Peace Campaign” organized by Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, I was give the “honor” of serving as a body guard for Fonda, recently returned from North Vietnam where she posed for photographs sitting in an anti-aircraft emplacement meant to shoot down American planes.

I was recruited for terrorist attacks like blowing up chemical plants by older radicals who didn’t have the courage to do it themselves. (I thank God today, I never followed through on these plots.) I wrote for some of the most left-wing periodicals in America – the Guardian, the Liberated Guardian and more.

And my reputation preceded me.

Even after college, when my views had moderated considerably, I was invited to meet Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were still underground for their own acts of domestic terrorism.

I tell you all of this – and there’s much more to the story – to illustrate the extent of my delusional misguidedness bred into me by a cadre of older and even less wise facilitators.

I’ve spent decades repudiating all those lies – deceptions and disinformation I understand better than most having been a victim of them.

But maybe I should have run for president instead.

Read more here.

Communists March Through Paris!!!

Another Enemy of the Left: Sugar

Attention SCOTUS: Arguments against Obamacare start and end with the notion that if it becomes a permanent law, government will have license to meddle in American’s daily lives beyond anything previously imagined.

Case in point; sugar. Since we have a health problem with obesity (and we do), the argument is being advanced that government must take control of dispensing sugar because so much of our excess weight is due to the fact we consume more sugar per capita than any other nation in the world.

Sugar is in almost all processed food, not to mention our huge consumption of chocolate and other candies.

But is regulating sugar like we regulate alcohol or tobacco the answer? It is if you’re a big government statist:

First, we think that the public needs to be better informed about the science of how sugar impacts our health.

Second, we need to take what we know about protecting societies from the health harms of alcohol and apply it to sugar.

What doesn’t work is all-out prohibition — that’s very old-school and often creates more problems than it solves.

What does work are gentle “supply side” controls, such as taxing products, setting age limits and promoting healthier versions of the product — like making it cheaper for a person to drink light beer rather than schnapps.

The reality is that unfettered corporate marketing actually limits our choices about the products we consume. If what’s mostly available is junk food and soda, then we actually have to go out of our way to find an apple or a drinking fountain. What we want is to actually increase people’s choices by making a wider range of healthy foods easier and cheaper to get.

Turning around obesity and chronic disease will be an uphill political fight, but there’s plenty that concerned people can do:

Read more here.

Anti-Biblical, Fraudulent and Fake Wicomico County Quakers stand behind Violent Occupiers: Update.

Editors note: We do not stand behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement here at U.S. Constitutional Free Press. How can anyone stand behind such a violent, lazy, unethical movement where numerous drug overdoses, murders, rapes, sexual assault are occurring. Not to mention people masturbating in front of children and defecating in the streets.


An editorial in the Daily Times:

Recently, Quakers — the Religious Society of Friends — in Salisbury approved the following minute:

“Wicomico River Friends Meeting unites with the intentions of the Occupy movement to bring attention to the inequalities in our society and urge economic justice through nonviolent means.”

The Occupy movement calls attention to the failures of our government. Unceasing electioneering and an often corrupting influence of special interests are preventing our officials from doing the jobs we have hired them to do. This has led to ineffective regulations and poor enforcement that allowed a near collapse of our economy which we have not fully recovered from.

It seems appropriate to make this statement during this season of Thanksgiving. Despite a poor economy, we are grateful for the freedoms and bounty we enjoy. Even those among us who have the least have it better than many other places in the world.

That doesn’t mean some of our neighbors here aren’t suffering. A new shelter for the homeless just opened in Salisbury, a blessing to ease some of the need — but not all of it. We pray for a time when shelters are closing from a lack of need.

Social movements begin when society reaches a breaking point, forcing people into the streets with their anger and pain. The Occupy movement is young. It will take time for its leadership to evolve and coherent solutions to emerge to compete in the market place of ideas.

During this process we will be with them, praying for the success of the underlying goal which unites us: a more just and responsive government that better serves everyone.

We wish for all of our neighbors peace, prosperity and a happy Thanksgiving.

Dana Kester-McCabe


Kester-McCabe is clerk for the Wicomico River Friends Meeting. — Editor


After reading this letter, one can only assume the Wicomico County Quakers stand for the kind of violent, sick, twisted and criminal behavior that the Occupy Wall Street Movement stands for. One then has to question, how can this group actually be part of the Quakers? Or in fact, are they part of the Quakers at all?

This is the type of behavior this fake religious organization backs………….

Occupy Portland Fleabaggers Sing ‘F*** the U.S.A.’

The ‘Occupiers’ do not represent Americans or their beliefs

Sneer though many of them did, liberals envied the success of the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010. Desperate to embrace an authentic populist movement of their own, they have been buoyed by the results of a Time magazine poll this week, purporting to demonstrate that the nascent Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, at 54 percent approval, are more popular than the Tea Party.

As The Examiner’s Phil Klein pointed out earlier this week, however, the numbers produced by the Time survey are quite misleading because of the magazine’s unusually vague but artful wording of questions. For example, Time’s survey described these anti-capitalist protests to respondents as being against the “government’s bank bailout and the influence of money in our political system.” The same description could be said of the Tea Party. In fact, other polls from reputable firms that used more objective questions have pegged OWS support in the low thirties — and with slightly negative net approval ratings.

We bring this up because Democratic officeholders considering encouraging or otherwise embracing the OWS demonstrators ought to think very carefully before doing so. For starters, they should take a thorough look at who the protesters are and what they stand for. According to a New York Magazine survey of OWS participants, a mere 3 percent described themselves as “liberal but fairly mainstream.” By contrast, 34 percent of them agreed with the statement that “the U.S. government is no better than, say, al Qaeda.” Do Democrats really want to march alongside of advocates of the 9/11 Truther version of recent American history?

More than half of the occupiers are under 29, and two-thirds of them are male. Compare this group of naifs to their counterparts in the Tea Party. Gallup found in April 2010 that the latter matched the national population almost precisely in age and income distribution, employment status, and educational attainment. In most respects, they looked like America.

Read more here.

Verizon on strike: is the middle class really in peril?

With no end in sight, the varying group of red-clad picketers at the Verizon location just around the corner from me promises to be a sight I’ll see for awhile – at least until the economic reality of making no money from working begins to rear its ugly head. According to reports like this, the union and company have been far apart in negotiations.

The Communications Workers of America union calls the strike “standing up for middle class jobs.” Their complaint is that an immensely profitable Verizon has “regressive demands” which “would roll back 50 years of bargaining gains.” Too, the union condemns the “Wisconsin-style tactics” employed by the company.

And the union is getting support in its efforts – for example, the Teamsters who represent UPS workers have ordered drivers not to make deliveries to Verizon facilities where they would cross a picket line. (Sounds like an opportunity for FedEx.) The CWA also claims that over 100,000 have signed a petition decrying Verizon’s “corporate greed.”

Yet Verizon states a case that the workers represent a division of the company that’s not profitable and all they are asking is for well-compensated union employees to chip in a little bit on their benefit packages. The company is also accusing the union of misrepresenting the company’s bargaining demands and also several incidents of vandalism and sabotage. (That seems to be par for the Big Labor course, as I’ll explain later.)

In essence, the conflict boils down to this: Verizon is trying to cut costs in a division that’s on its way to obsolescence. No longer are Americans tied to a phone line as more and more households have eschewed a landline phone for cellular service. Nor does Verizon even have the monopoly on landline service as they used to because cable providers and others have made these services available. Unfortunately for the Verizon employees affected by the strike, their business will eventually go the route of the horse and buggy just as that of the telephone operator went away years ago when direct-dial phones became available.

The other irksome item within the union’s argument is playing that old class envy card. Their claim that the “very profitable company has paid its top five executives more than $258 million over the past four years” doesn’t address how these corporate leaders were paid. Most likely much of the compensation came in the form of stock options granted because the company was “very profitable” – would they prefer these executives lost millions of dollars instead? (By the way, that $258 million number works out to $1433.33 per striking employee per year. Would the strikers accept such a measly pay raise on even a $60,000 salary, let alone upwards of $90,000?)

Certainly that sounds like a huge amount of compensation for these executives – after all, who wouldn’t want a gig where they made an average of $12 million per year? But then again, would you like the hard work and long hours these people put in on their way up the corporate ladder? I doubt these positions were handed to them, and they certainly require more thought and skill in a number of areas than the average line worker would be able to exhibit. A failure on a line worker’s part may mean a few hundred customers are inconvenienced until someone can fix the issue. A CEO’s screwup could drive the entire company to bankruptcy and cost thousands of workers their jobs – so let’s get a sense of proportion here.

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: