Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11

Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11

by DC Dave


When asked the question, “What impresses you more about George W. Bush and Barack Obama, their absence of intelligence or their absence of integrity,” a ready answer comes to mind, and it is clearly not the same for each. But in the case of Bush’s first Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, I think you will have to agree that it’s a tough call.


That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw in the pages of The New York Timesthat Rumsfeld had essayed a comparison between the momentous events in Hawaii on December 7, 1941, and in New York City, Arlington, VA, and Shanksville, PA, on September 11, 2001. The one big similarity that he was able to note was that—as the official script reads—we were caught completely by surprise in each case.

In turn, that got me to thinking along the lines that I lay out in the opening paragraphs of my article, “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster.” Suppose you were a professor of United States history and had the opportunity to give the following assignment to your students in an exam: “Compare and contrast Pearl Harbor and 9/11.” What are the answers that you would be looking for from your best students?

Surely they would have to say that each of the events resulted in our going to war. That’s where the comparison almost has to begin. But no sooner have we written it than a contrast arises. When Japan attacked us, we were, by definition, already at war. Disregarding, for the moment, what might have led up to the attack, one could hardly say about our war with Japan, as with our subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that it was a “war of choice.” One might argue, however, that the war with Germany was a war of choice, even though Hitler declared war on the United States four days later on December 11. His rationale was not, as is commonly believed, that they were obligated by treaty to do so, but that the United States had every intention of going to war with Germany after the attack and he might as well beat us to the punch. One can’t read FDR’s speech of December 9, 1941, and come to any other conclusion than that Hitler was correct in his assessment, whether or not the “beating to the punch” move was wise from a propaganda perspective. That FDR speech laid the blame for the Pearl Harbor attack as much on Germany as on Japan and was clearly intended to prepare the country for war with all three Axis powers, Germany, Italy, and Japan.

5071The next strong comparison that can be made is that the wars that resulted were wars that powerful people within the United States government wanted to happen. For months Roosevelt had been doing almost everything he could to provoke Hitler into attacking us, but Hitler would not go for the bait. Even Roosevelt’s greatest defenders will admit that this was true. They argue that it was simply the right thing to do to ally ourselves with Britain (and the Soviet Union) against “Nazi aggression.” The big problem, from that perspective, is that the mood of the country was still strongly against our involvement in “foreign wars,” based upon our bitter World War I experience. In a campaign speech on October 30, 1940, as the European war raged, Roosevelt had catered to the national mood with these words, “And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

Pearl Harbor got him off the hook that he had created for himself with that promise. It wasn’t a “foreign war” anymore because we had been attacked.


Similarly, the key people in the George W. Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, but also his top assistant Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney, as members of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 2000 had called for precisely the sort of aggressive military policy that followed 9/11, but acknowledged that it would not happen very quickly “absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy. 

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

– “The Project for the New American Century,” by William Rivers Pitt

This “new Pearl Harbor” was something of a godsend to the men whose portraits we see in this video like the original one was to FDR and to the people behind him.

Maybe the most important contrast between the two events, again, using only the official narrative, is that the Japanese attack plan was, at least tactically, thoroughly rational and depended for its success upon predictable behavior by the U.S. adversary. By contrast, the 9/11 attacks were tactically irrational and, on paper, well nigh hopeless, depending as they did upon unprecedented incompetence on the part the North American Air Defense Command and amazing docility by airline passengers and crew and no less amazing competence by novice pilots of airliners. The Japanese, as we knew, were well served by their espionage agents in Hawaii and they knew that General Walter Short had not been supplied with an adequate number of patrol planes to provide sufficient warning by the air attack from carriers that they planned. * They also knew from observation that security tended to be somewhat more relaxed on a Sunday than on any other day. The Japanese attackers were professionals doing something very similar to what they must have done many times before in their training.

How could the supposed 9/11 hijackers have known that the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) would not follow its usual protocol and simply intercept the airplanes very shortly after they had departed from their normal flight paths? The question holds true in particular for the attack upon the Pentagon, which occurred a full 51 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Through what extraordinary espionage could the attackers have known in advance that the U.S. Air Force would send up interceptor jets from Langley Air Force Base in distant Hampton, Virginia, that would arrive too late, instead of from nearby Andrews Air Force Base just a few miles away in Maryland or even Bolling Air Force Base across the river in Washington, DC? See my satire, “Bin Laden’s Home Video: The Missing Portion,” for more on this whole question.

The supposed Al Qaeda plan, as it has been told to us, violated radically the U. S. military’s KISS (keep it simple, stupid) doctrine and Sun Tzu’s dictum, “Never underestimate your opponent,” in The Art of War.  The Japanese attack plan, by contrast, was simple and took due regard of our expected defense.

story1After Pearl Harbor, scapegoats were blamed and punished. No one has been punished for allowing 9/11 to happen. Admiral Husband Kimmel, in charge of the Pacific Fleet—based at Pearl Harbor instead of San Diego over the vigorous protests of his predecessor—who had been relieved of his duty over the issue—and General Short were promptly relieved of their commands and were later blamed by the Roberts Commission for “errors of judgment and dereliction of duty.”

The report of the Roberts Commission had its counterpart in the 9/11 wcshort-usa-photo-01Commission Report. There are no counterparts to Admiral Kimmel and General Short in that report, however. To this writer’s knowledge, no individual has ever been singled out for punishment for what happened. We have previously summed up the situation with the following poem:

That Country of the People…

The feds left us unprotected

On that fateful September day.

If we were a truly free

And democratic nation

Somebody up high would pay,

And, to be sure, there would be

A proper investigation,

But wouldn’t you know, it is we

Who get detained and inspected.

At Pearl Harbor, from the very first moment it was obvious that we were being attacked by the formidable military of a relatively large country population-wise in Japan. On 9/11, it was not at all obvious who was attacking us and it is still not to this day. The authorities and the news media were suspiciously quick to solve the crime and lay the blame on Osama Bin Laden when they had been suspiciously incompetent in preventing it. In this aspect of the case, 9/11 resembles the Oklahoma City bombing and the two Kennedy assassinations and the Martin Luther King, Jr., assassination more than it resembles the Pearl Harbor attack. Moreover, in terms of the real threat that it represents to the nation, there is a huge difference between being attacked by a heavily armed country and being attacked by a ragtag, stateless organization or group of individuals whose armaments amount to almost nothing.

The strategic objective of the Japanese was obvious, to gain a large advantage in the shooting-war phase of its war with the United States. The 9/11 attacks had no clear objective.

Having been given an ultimatum by the United States that no Japanese government could have accepted, the Japanese leaders initiated war in precisely the way in which they had been successful in the past. It was either that or be choked and starved by the U.S. embargo. They were fully aware that it would bring down the full might of the United States in retaliation, but they felt they had no choice in the matter. No such rationale existed for Osama Bin Laden to invite U.S. retaliation in a similar fashion.


In neither case did the attacks catch everyone on our side by surprise. Our military leaders in Washington, through the interception and decryption of a message from Tokyo to its negotiators in Washington, knew beyond a reasonable doubt that Pearl Harbor would be attacked four hours before the attack took place, but failed to convey a warning to General Short and Admiral Kimmel until it was too late. They knew by the night before that an attack would occur somewhere in the Pacific. By the next morning, when the last part of the cable had been decrypted and they saw that the negotiators were ordered to deliver their message ending peace talks at 1 pm Washington time, they could see that the most likely target for attack was Pearl Harbor. That was 7:30 am Honolulu time, which was approximately dawn, the most likely time for an attack. See “Six Myths of the Traditional Pearl Harbor Story” by Michael T. Griffith for a good short summary.

No more than the American public or the American Congress, Short and Kimmel had not been told about the November 27 ultimatum to Japan that made war virtually inevitable. The most obvious conclusion to be reached is that to do so, like alerting them the morning of December 7 or the evening of December 6, would have resulted in their preparation to defeat the sort of attack that occurred. Japan’s spies in Hawaii, it was known, would have detected these preparations, and the desired war-starting attack would have been called off.


Five Dancing Israelis

A number of people seemed to have had advance notice of the 9/11 attacks. To the list of links provided in this article, one might also add the group of “celebrating Israelis” who got themselves into place to “document the event.”  In the specific case of Building 7 of the World Trade Center, the BBC and CNN seem to have had prior warning of its collapse because they reported that it had fallen before it had done so.

As for the claims by various people in the Bush administration, detailed in this web site, that they could not possibly have imagined such a stunt as hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings, they are perhaps best belied by the fact that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) had planned a drill for precisely that on the day of the attacks.

From all indications, the ships at Pearl Harbor that were damaged by the attack either sank or they did not in accordance with the laws of physics. That seems not to have been the case with respect the buildings damaged in New York or Arlington, VA, if the official narrative is to be believed.

No one has ever been given any reason to suspect that Pearl Harbor was a false flag incident. Although General Short had been led to believe by his superiors in Washington that the greatest danger he faced was from sabotage, and prepared accordingly, no one has claimed that sabotage caused any of the damage that occurred on December 7, 1941. By contrast, virtually all of the damage that occurred on 9/11 bears a very close resemblance to sabotage.

The United States was able to portray itself purely as a victim in each case. Such “victimology” is completely consistent with the historical tactics of one particular interest group that wielded a great deal of power within both the Roosevelt and Bush administrations. Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war against that group’s greatest enemy, Nazi Germany, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, himself, said that the 9/11 attacks were “good for Israel.” It can also be safely said that Israel is the only country in the world where the majority of the population favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The comparisons and the contrasts could go on and on, but we shall conclude by noting that the war in which the United States became involved as a result of Pearl Harbor was against other countries that would end in the usual way, when one side or the other surrendered. Since 9/11, our leaders have told us that we are in a war against a tactic, an abstract noun, “terrorism,” and that is a war that promises no end. An abstract noun cannot sign surrender papers.




* “Col. Melvin W. Maas, of the Marine Corps Reserve, former Minnesota Congressman, said that when two hundred fifty patrol bombers necessary to bring Hawaii up to required minimum strength of three hundred planes came off the production lines, Washington ordered them sent to Britain. When protests were made to Roosevelt, he referred the admirals to Harry Hopkins, in charge of allocating war materials.

“’Hopkins received them as he lay in bed, nonchalantly smoking a cigarette,’ said Maas. ‘He listened to them, then told them the interview was over and that he had already made the allocation. Adm. Kimmel told me if those two hundred fifty patrol planes had been sent to Hawaii, the December 7 attack could never have succeeded, and probably would never have been attempted.’” (George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War, Kindle location approx. 2300)


David Martin

April 3, 2014


Also see this oldie but goodie:

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Was Franklin Roosevelt a Communist?


Was Franklin Roosevelt a Communist?

 by DC Dave


John Beaty in his 1951 book, The Iron Curtain Over America, asks the following rhetorical question (p. 187):

In solemn truth, do not seven persons share most of the responsibility for establishing the Communist grip on the world? Are not the seven: (1) Marx, the founder of violent Communism; (2) Engels, the promoter of Marx; (3, 4, 5) Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin; (6) Franklin D. Roosevelt, who rescued the tottering Communist empire by recognition (1933), by the resultant financial support, by his refusal to proceed against Communists in the United States, and by the provisions of the Yalta Conference; and (7) Harry S. Truman, who agreed at Potsdam to the destruction of Germany and thereafter followed the Franklin Roosevelt policy of refusing to act against Communists in the United States—the one strong nationhtruman which remains as a possible obstacle to the Communist world power.

Upon first thought one might be inclined to drop Truman from the list on account of the institution of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and the stand he took against the Communists in Korea in 1950, but if one puts the loss of China, North Korea, and ultimately the former French Indo-China to the Communists on his account, which is amply justified, Truman deserves his place. He is the odd man out only in that no one could ever charge that his policies resulted from anything resembling a pro-Communist ideology on his part. Rather, they were a product of the team that he inherited from FDR and the generally pro-Soviet mood of the country that had been fostered by a decade or so of propaganda by the dominant U.S. opinion molders. Truman can also be excused for simply being in over his head when he assumed the presidency.

Roosevelt is a different matter entirely. One needn’t go past the pages of my own web site to gather enough evidence to support the assertion that FDR himself must have been a Communist. Consider what FDR told Rep. Martin Dies in 1940:

I do not regard the Communists as any present or future threat to our country, in fact I look upon Russia as our strongest ally in the years to come.  As I told you when you began your investigation, you should confine yourself to Nazis and Fascists.  While I do not believe in Communism, Russia is far better off and the world is safer with Russia under Communism than under the Czars.  Stalin is a great leader, and although I deplore some of his methods, it is the only way he can safeguard his government.

His protestation of a lack of belief in Communism is completely belied by his words here and in many, many ways by his actions. Dies notes that those pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin views match what he told Cardinal Spellman in 1943:

His aide memoire is completely in accord with the opinions Roosevelt expressed to me over the years. Specifically, the President had said that Russia was our natural ally; that the Russian people were much better off than they had been under the czars; and that he thought that the Russians would get about forty percent of the world, and the capitalist regimes would retain sixty percent.

Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s policies seemed to have been designed to make sure that the prediction in that last paragraph would come true. The Yalta Conference near the end of the war was just the capper on a global war strategy that from beginning to end could hardly have been better crafted to further the interests of Joseph Stalin and world Communism. Having been attacked by the Japanese, the American public along with many of the country’s military leaders wanted a greater emphasis upon the Pacific theater and defeat of the Japanese and less upon the war with the Germans, but Stalin wanted it otherwise and that’s what he got from Roosevelt. In the battle against the Germans, our British allies favored an attack in the Eastern Mediterranean and up through the Balkans, but, again, Stalin wanted a different strategy from us. He feared that we would occupy Eastern Europe and dictate the peace in that area before his troops could arrive. Stalin, therefore, pushed for us to attack across the English Channel at the earliest possible date to take German pressure off the Soviet Union while keeping non-Communist allied forces as far away from his sphere of interest as possible. Only fierce British resistance probably prevented the allies from making a premature attack across the channel, but we finally did carry out Stalin’s wishes.

jan14-2-imgFrom the beginning we lavished supplies and equipment upon the Soviet Union far beyond the requirements of military necessity. Worst of all was Roosevelt’s unilateral declaration at the Casablanca Conference early in 1943 that we would only accept unconditional surrender to conclude the war. Our rigid adherence to that policy virtually to the very end* undercut the strong anti-Nazi elements within Germany, assuring that there would not be a separate peace between the non-Communist adversaries that would in some degree deprive the Soviet Union of the spoils of victory, and that the Japanese would continue to fight until the Soviet Union could enter the Pacific war and promote Communism in the East. This unconditional surrender policy resulted in the Roosevelt administration spurning a number of serious peace overtures from the anti-Nazi, anti-Communist military leadership of Germany in 1943. Later, we were to do the same thing with respect to the Japanese emperor.

Defenders of Roosevelt’s complete capitulation to Stalin at Yalta argue that we were simply accepting facts on the ground achieved through Soviet military success, and there is some truth to it, but only because of previous concessions to Stalin at Tehran and through our overall pro-Soviet military strategy. The absolute worst things Roosevelt did at Yalta were to agree to the return of refugees from Russia to their Soviet oppressors known as Operation Keelhaul and the offering of inducements to Stalin to enter the war against the Japanese. George N. Crocker in Roosevelt’s Road to Russia best captures the folly of that last position:

[In Honolulu] on July 27 and 28, 1944, [FDR] had discussed the war in the Pacific for many hours with General Douglas MacArthur, who had flown up from Australia, and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander of the naval forces in the Pacific. MacArthur and Nimitz, in the presence of Admiral William D. Leahy, had told him that “Japan could be forced to accept our terms of surrender by the use of sea and air power without an invasion of the Japanese homeland.” Since then, what was left of the Japanese fleet had been crushed in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October, the Philippines had been retaken, B-29’s were bombing Japan from Guam, Tinian, and Saipan, and Japanese peace feelers had been put out.

When Roosevelt went to Yalta, he kept MacArthur and Nimitz far away. He asked them nothing, told them nothing. In view of what he did at Yalta, this would seem an incomprehensible neglect on his part to avail himself of the counsel of the two men most qualified to give it. The only explanation that makes any sense is that he already knew what their advice would be, that it was not compatible with his plans, and that he did not welcome having their opinions—overwhelmingly authoritative as they would be—presented. At this stage, elementary statesmanship, for the security of American interests in the Far East, required that the Soviet Union be, at almost any cost, dissuaded, discouraged, and forestalled from entering the war with Japan. Roosevelt went to Yalta and secretly did just the opposite. (pp. 242-243).

Rather than depending upon the foreign policy expertise of Secretary of State Cordell Hull at his various strategy powwows with HopkinsHarryWinston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, he depended almost exclusively upon the former social worker right-hand man Harry Hopkins. Hull was not even allowed to attend the meetings. The main qualification that Hopkins had, other than the “people skills” that author David Roll is almost rhapsodic about in The Hopkins Touchis that he was an even stronger partisan of Stalin and Communism than Roosevelt was. For a brief summary of Hopkins’ pro-Communist activities see my recent article, “Harry Hopkins and FDR’s Commissars.

Roosevelt did take his Secretary of State to Yalta, but this time that was the rubber-stamp front man Edward Stettinius. Stettinius played a much less significant role at Yalta than did his putative underling at the State Department, the Soviet spy Alger Hiss. Only from reading the recent book Stalin’s Secret Agents by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein did this writer learn that FDR had asked for the somewhat obscure Hiss by name to be on his Yalta team. This is very nearly the most damning piece of evidence of all suggesting that FDR himself must have been a Communist. After all, he had been informed by his security chief Adolf Berle back in 1939 upon very good inside information from Whittaker Chambers that Hiss was a Soviet espionage agent. His “refusal to proceed against Communists in the United States,” as John Beaty puts it, was even worse than that. He refused to proceed against Communist spies at the highest levels of his own government, Soviet agents that possibly included even Harry Hopkins himself.

The Contrary Evidence

It is a less trivial defense than one might think, but one might say that Roosevelt wasn’t learned or smart enough to be devoted to any particular ideology, whether it be Communism or anything else. He was nobody’s intellectual. He was hardly known to have read a serious book of non-fiction about anything unless it had a nautical theme, and the American Communism of the Red Decade was largely a disease of the intellectuals. Roosevelt was not an “ideas” person, he was a people person, much more strongly influenced by the exigencies of the moment or by whatever strong personality was able to get close to him and bend his ear than by any sort of ideological inclination or independent thought or study.

Here is how Crocker fashions his negative answer to our title question in Roosevelt’s Road to Russia:

Through his sources of information in the United States, some of whom were in high places, Stalin knew that Franklin D. Roosevelt could be relied upon to see at least this phase [the Soviet reaping of the war spoils] of the program through. He was not mistaken.

Does this mean the American people had elected a crypto-Communist as President? Or that this President, by shunting the third war, the secret one, out of sight, consciously intended harm to his country? It does not. No such inference is intended. To make it is to misapprehend the Roosevelt mentality.

Here we touch a delicate point. Roosevelt was no more a Communist than he was a Jeffersonian. Conversely, he was no more a Jeffersonian than he was a Communist. Ideologies were not the stuff of the cerebrations that took place in that handsome head. Here was no furrow-browed zealot for a system, no Karl Marx, no Adam Smith. In the presence of an argument between a socialist and a capitalist, he would be likely to steal the show with a charmingly put evasion. To Harold Ickes’ wistful plaint that it was “impossible to come to grips with him,” James F. Byrnes has added that “Franklin Roosevelt was not the same to any two men.” The man who, as we shall see, clandestinely obtained the recommendations of Earl Browder, the head of the Communist party, in the crucial months of the war, wore a different collar than the man who discussed affairs with Byrnes.

Most confounding of the notion that FDR could have been a devoted Communist, to my mind, was his admiration for and use of the career Republican politician, General Patrick J. Hurley. Hurley was a thoroughgoing American patriot and as such was a strong anti-Communist, an anti-Zionist, and an anti-imperialist as well. To get some appreciation of Hurley’s sentiments see “FDR’s Top Envoy Slaps Down Top Zionist” and “The Old Zionist Smear Machine.” Those articles are about Hurley’s work as FDR’s special envoy to the Middle East in 1943. In that position, Hurley’s anti-Zionism was hardly in conflict with Roosevelt’s own predisposition to oppose the Zionists’ ambitions in Palestine. But in August of 1944 Roosevelt put Hurley in a position where he could strike a very strong blow against Communism, at least Mao Tse-tung’s version of it. He sent Hurley as a special envoy to Chiang Kai-shek and in November he made him Ambassador to China. Hurley, in a very important move, sacked the Chiang-hating General “Vinegar” Joe Stillwell and had him replaced by the anti-Communist General Albert Wedemeyer.

Roosevelt’s confidence in Hurley is several times attested by General Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It.  In Tehran the 180px-PJayHurlmorning after the banquet at the Russian Embassy the President said:

I want you to do something for me, Elliott.  Go find Pat Hurley, and tell him to get to work drawing up a draft memorandum guaranteeing Iran’s independence…I wish I had more men like Pat, on whom I could depend.  The men in the State Department, those career diplomats…half the time I can’t tell whether I should believe them or not (pp. 192-193).

At the second Cairo Conference the President told his son:

That Pat Hurley…He did a good job.  If anybody can straighten out the mess of internal Chinese politics, he’s the man…Men like Pat Hurley are invaluable.  Why?  Because they’re loyal.  I can give him assignments that I’d never give a man in the State Department because I can depend on him…Any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats aren’t in accord with what they know I think (pp. 204-205)

Reading that passage from pp. 86-87 of Beaty’s The Iron Curtain Over America one can’t help but lament that FDR chose Harry Hopkins instead of Hurley to do his foreign policy heavy lifting during the war.  As it happened, the one good thing that Roosevelt did to oppose the Communists was reversed by his successor Truman as Hurley was undercut by his Communist-sympathizing underlings and forced out.  Furthermore, Roosevelt may not have had much of a choice in the matter when it came to the selection of Hopkins.

FDR Not His Own Man?

The impression one gets from Curtis Dall’s F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-in-Law is that far from just being Roosevelt’s flunky, Hopkins was close to being a co-President.  He had the same sort of ambition and the same sort of cunning that FDR did, and beginning his career in New York City as a social worker he developed the same network among New York’s power brokers that Roosevelt did.

Dall, a New York stockbroker newly married to Roosevelt’s daughter Anna had an inside look at the maneuvering around his father-in-law before and after his election as President in 1932.  The man who carried the most immediate weight with Roosevelt was his Dutchess County neighbor, New York City real estate mogul and Democratic Party kingmaker Henry Morgenthau, Sr., whom the the Roosevelt clan all called “Uncle Henry.” Uncle Henry, according to Dall, was able to prevail upon FDR to make his feckless son, Henry, Jr., his Secretary of the Treasury because FDR was beholding to the father for having had a big investment loss restored by Henry, Sr., some years before.  Dall’s account of the appointment is tantalizing:

In due course, Henry was placed by FDR in a suitable “spot,” one for which he had no significant financial 1258040926FDR_HenryMjr-380experience…The Secretary of the Treasury.  However, in the minds of some important bankers here and abroad, Henry’s inexperience in that connection was his most important qualification for that post.  It made him receptive to much needed “advice.”  The “advice” extended in his direction, of course, was readily forthcoming.

Harry Dexter White, Henry’s close associate and busy right-hand man in the Treasury, was soon “dug up” for him.  Who arranged that move?  Certainly it was not provided by FDR.  Was it Mr. [Bernard] Baruch or Henry’s father or some foreign banking group?  Harry Dexter White became a profitable delivery boy for them but not for us.  Certainly his disastrous financial manipulations aimed primarily to enrich the money powers were soon to become far more discernible to alert Americans than his reported New England internment, following his sudden heart attack, curiously acquired on the morrow of his overdue exposure before a Congressional investigation. (p. 85)

Find the hand pulling White’s (ne. Weit) strings and you will have found those pulling Roosevelt’s.  Isaac Don Levine very distinctly remembers that White was among those named by Whittaker Chambers as members of the Soviet espionage ring in their meeting with Adolf Berle in 1939.  Chambers doesn’t recall that but in his book, Witness, he says that White cooperated with his spy ring even though White was not a Communist Party member.  If White was really working for the international bankers who were instrumental in bringing the Bolsheviks to power in Russia, one might say that by not being in the employ of Joe Stalin White was just cutting out the middleman.

White was later to become the principal author of the infamous Morgenthau Plan that called for the destruction of Germany’s manufacturing, vengefully reducing it to an economic wasteland ripe for Communist takeover.  Recently it has been plausibly argued in two books that White was a moving force behind the provocative U.S. posture that led to the Pearl Harbor attack.  See The Battle for Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Orderand Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor.

Another person who, early on, exhibited a lot of influence on FDR was Felix Frankfurter.  Again, Dall’s account is intriguing:

Naturally, at any gathering, I had to guess those who were “important,” those who were “relatively unimportant,” and, finally, those who were quite “unimportant!!!”


Seated around the dinner table at Hyde Park one Sunday noon in December of 1932 was the usual large gathering of interesting people.

One of them happened to be Professor Felix Frankfurter, who had arrived from Harvard University for a conference with FDR.

As I recall, he was placed on the right side of Mama; therefore, I knew he was regarded as “important.”  She usually was flanked by the two most important personages then present.  The President-elect and his mother took on the next echelon of importance during the meal.

Something puzzled me, however, concerning which I had recurring thoughts—why would a college professor at Harvard come all the way from Cambridge, Massachusetts, to Hyde Park to see FDR at this time?  Could it be in connection with some new educational program at Harvard?  Was it a social visit, or did Frankfurter want something for himself?  Most callers did want something?  What was it? (pp. 65-66)

The implied question in the passage is, “From what did this law professor derive his importance to Roosevelt at this time?” That leads to the question as to what powerful people were behind him and from what was their power derived.  Whoever they were, they certainly accomplished a great deal through him.  Let us fast-forward to the end of the 1940s as recounted by John Beaty:

In fact, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is frequently referred to by those who know their way around Washington as the “President” of the United States.  In a recent “gag,” the question “Do you want to see a new picture of the President of the United States?” is followed up by showing a likeness of Frankfurter.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter is influential not only in counsel but in furthering the appointment of favored individuals to strategic positions.  The so-called “Frankfurter boys” include Mr. [Dean] Acheson, with whom the justice takes daily walks, weather permitting (New York Times, January 19, 1949); Alger Hiss, Lee Pressman, David Niles, ** long a senior assistant to President Truman; Benjamin V. Cohen, long Counselor of the Department of State; David Lilienthal, long Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission; John J. McCloy, Joe Rauh, Nathan Margold; Donald Hiss, brother of Alger, and “now a member of the Acheson law firm”; Milton Katz; and former Secretary of War Robert Patterson, “a hundred per cent Frankfurter employee” (all names and quotes in this paragraph are from Drew Pearson’s syndicated column, February 1, 1950). (p. 58)

Considering his own ethnic background, one should hardly be surprised at the heavy Jewish representation in the list, but that four of the eleven men on the list, Pressman, Niles, and the Hiss brothers should be likely Communist subversives is really quite striking.  Furthermore, Acheson and Frankfurter publicly declared that Alger Hiss was innocent well past the time when it was evident that he was not.

On the night of his first encounter with Frankfurter, Dall was asked by Eleanor Roosevelt to keep Frankfurter company on their train ride back into New York City.  After a period of some awkward silence it occurred to Dall to break it by mentioning a mutual acquaintance.  Dall had gone both to high school and to Princeton University with James “Chink” Landis, who was at that time a colleague of Frankfurters at the Harvard Law School and had co-written articles with him.  Dall broached the subject and here’s how the exchange went:

By now Frankfurter was eyeing me rather intently.  Then he said, “What do you think of James today?”

“Well, Professor,” I replied, “I haven’t seen ‘Chink’ for a number of years.  However, knowing his ability, I would say that he would do very well indeed in whatever undertaking he set out to accomplish.  Some of his views, however, that is, some of his political views, I would say, are a bit too far to the left.  I sometimes hear indirectly about him through my brother-in-law, Jimmy, and…”

I stopped talking, at that point, rather amazed.

The Professor’s face flushed with surprise and anger at my casual observation.  He made no attempt at concealment.  He glared at me and naturally our conversation ceased abruptly.  Silence ensued.

I was quite taken aback at the unexpected turn of events and wondered what I could have said to cause such an unfavorable and violent reaction in the mind of the well-known Harvard “Legal Light.”

As the silence deepened, I became quite annoyed, in turn, at what appeared to me to be a rather unwarranted display of temperament on his part. (pp. 68-69)

Dall later discovered that Frankfurter was a close friend of the prominent political theorist, Harold Laski.  Some Harvard law students who had been given a letter of introduction to Laski by Frankfurter took the liberty to ask him if he was a Communist.  Laski responded without hesitation that he was.  When asked if his friend Frankfurter was one as well, Laski paused for a bit and then asked, “Did you ask me if Felix was a Communist?”

“Yes we did,” was the response.

Laski then replied, “Well, no, I wouldn’t say that Felix is a Communist, but we are close friends.  We talk to each other at least once every week, over the trans-Atlantic telephone.”

Who Were the Communists?


Rather to ask if Roosevelt was a Communist, the better question to ask is if the people with the real power who were behind him were Communists.  The preponderance of evidence suggests that they were, or at least that they pursued the interests of the Soviet Union above the interests of the United States.  One of main reasons for that was the lingering good will felt among the Jewish leadership in the United States toward the Soviet Communists because they had thrown out the hated Czars.  The Jewish hatred of the Czars in the late 19th century and through much of the 20th century rivaled the residual hatred of the Nazis today.  One can’t help but think that Roosevelt was just parroting what he had picked up from his handlers when he repeatedly compared Stalin favorably to the Czars.  He was hardly a student of Russian history, after all.

The power and influence of Roosevelt’s Jewish handlers were at their height during the war years with the pro-Soviet Henry Wallace as Roosevelt’s heir apparent as Vice-President and the pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins at his side planning war policy.  The insurrection among Democratic Party leaders that forced FDR to replace Wallace with Truman represented a vital beginning of the easing of the pro-Communist grip.  The forced renunciation of the insanely vengeful Morgenthau Plan through outraged public opinion was another great step in the right direction.

Those who might argue that the power behind Roosevelt could not have been primarily Jewish or he would not have been anti-Zionist fail to reckon with the fact that some of the strongest opponents of Zionism at that time were Jewish.  These included perhaps his closest handler of all, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., as well the powerful New York Times publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger.  Much of the Jewish energy that now mainly goes into building up Israel, in Roosevelt’s day, unfortunately, went into the promotion of the Soviet Union.



* The United States dropped the “unconditional surrender” demand for Japan and allowed them to keep the Emperor only upon the urging of Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal.  This happened after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings and the Japanese had responded in a conciliatory fashion, except that they refused to yield on the question of the Emperor.  See how I set the popular film director straight on this question in “Oliver Stone on the Japanese Surrender.”

** Niles is also my prime candidate as the coordinator of the assassination of Secretary of Defense James   Forrestal.  See  “Who Killed James Forrestal?”


David Martin


March 28, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or



For Digger (diggerfortruth)

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

911′s A Lie

Just a small reminder:

Dated, but still good…

h/t DC Dave

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Who Are The Real Parasites?

Are they the Jason Greenslates of the world?


29-Year-Old Welfare Parasite Would Not Accept An $80,000 A Year Job Driving A Truck

These baby eaters (people like Michael Snyder, who wrote the piece) use someone like Sean Hannity, (an uneducated baby eater who somehow went from traveling the country Hannityeatsbabydoing general contracting work and bar tending to TV fame… seemingly by sucking up to the sweJ)  as some sort of role model for work ethic to attack the people who have no real job potential and are conditioned to be the “welfare parasites” he suggests they are. Now I don’t know much about Snyder, but something tells me that his gig (writing blogs and books) probably pays pretty well because he was an attorney who quit (or was fired?) and started writing. Something tells me he would not sit his ass in a trucker’s seat for any amount of money, even if his idol, Sean Hannity, could get him the job after his blogs were deleted by Homeland Security and books spontaneously combusted.

Yes, Michael, please use a Fox News Millionaire to educate us on what a real work ethic is.

But I digress from my point.

I am not defending this Greenslate guy in as much as I am trying to remonstrate the massive hypocrisy of a well-to-do writer calling attention to the poorparasite man’s parasitism and NOT looking at the elephant in the room who is truly the real blood-sucking scroungers that have taken America’s wealth and left us ignorant, jobless and destitute.

America was built off the white European work ethic. Diversity has produced an entire group of dependent folks with little to no work ethic. The take-over of education by these same culprits dumbs down the young ones and fosters a dependency mindset, not to mention total laziness (just compare Common Core to what I grew up with in the 1960′s school systems). Even from the lowest educated state in the union (Mississippi), I was taught upper level math courses, sciences, and history (albeit tainted from the government’s point of view). If you failed… you FAILED and stayed back to do it all over again. Today, no one is “left behind” and everyone gets to pass (work hard or not).

Maybe you should watch the B’Man original video derived from Greg’s work at The Goon Squad to understand what a real parasite is:

My mother is German (born in 1942 and raised in WWII’s horrifying aftermath). The German work ethic is unbelievable and she taught me to earn for myself and not depend on any entity. She had me working from the time I was 13 years old, until I was 17, then I took two more jobs on top of the one she and Dad furnished me that took me through my first two years of college (flipping hamburgers and as a DJ at a skating rink). By George, I know what it is to work.

But let us face realities that many “old guys” seem to forget,  ignore, or are too ignorant to understand. We must understand that where we find ourselves as a society is purposeful and orchestrated. We are brainwashed to believe thisBankers-and-Tick1 is how it should be. With each and every generation, the work ethic is watered down to near nothingness. The Haves are able to send kids to schools (private) which still teach certain priorities and skill-sets, whereas poor folk don’t get those same training and enlightenment possibilities. Schools like I once attended no longer teach the same methods and curriculum. Sports get all the money and the arts get nothing. A wonderful lady I graduated high school with (who went on to teach young children in the same public school) recently told me she wants out, for in her opinion, they are designedly dumbing the kids down.

Fred On Everything illustrates my “dumbing down” point by discussing “Blended Learning” in Brooklyn, New York (and you wonder why there are so many illiterates with no chance at actually attaining the “decent jobs” that no longer exist in this country):

Despite much wringing of teeth and gnashing of hands about the decline in schooling in the United States, I have seen very little concrete comparison between then and now, whatever one means by “then.” In my small way, as a mere anecdote in a sea of troubles, I hereby offer an actual comparison. Permit me to preview the result: Much of the United States has sunk to the level of the lower ranks of the Third World.

DeliberateDumbingDownAs an example of documented current practice in urban schools—I have seen similar from Detroit, Chicago, and Mississippi—here are a few emails sent to the New York Post by students of Manhattan’s Murry Bergtraum HS for Business Careers. These have been posted by various horrified writers, but I repeat them here in case the reader hasn’t seen them. They concern the students’ support for something called “Blended Learning,” in which one watches a video, answers a few questions, and gets credit. The Post had written a piece critical of same, putting the students into an uproar.

A junior wrote: “What do you get of giving false accusations im one of the students that has blended learning I had a course of English and I passed and and it helped a lot you’re a reported your support to get truth information other than starting rumors . . .”

Right out of Milton, that.

Another wrote: “To deeply criticize a program that has helped many students especially seniors to graduate I should not see no complaints.”

One student said the online system beats the classroom because “you can digest in the information at your own paste.”

Now, I have no information on what things they do not know other than English. Approximately everything, I suspect. I do know that growing up long ago in average white schools from kindergarten onwards, I learned to speak better English by the second grade than these high-school students—“students”—will likely ever speak. I could write much better English. I think it reasonable to suspect that kids who want to digest in information at their own paste probably do not know a lot of algebra or chemistry. We are producing illiterate, unemployable barbarians inassimilable to a First World country.

Let us move along at my slow, redneck “paste”…


We must note that as people like Snyder seem to dislike the slugs who get a few hundred bucks a month (with the cursory attempt to address the people who simply can NOT find work, much less an $80K/year job some TV personality says he can get him), but where is he addressing the real Welfare Queens like the bankers and giant corporations who get $60-80BILLION/month (which dwarfs the slugs’ meager pittance)? And how about the giant corporations who off shore their headquarters and pay ZERO taxes. Or folks like Facebook and GE owners who get all sorts of subsidies and tax breaks where I (a poor Tennessean) pay more in actual taxes than they do.


If someone wants to bitch, then why not harp on these same giant corp asswipes that sent all the decent paying jobs to China (or anywhere else to maximize profit while strangling to death the American worker who made it possible for them to rip us all off), enabling them to enjoy their Mega bonuses and tax free lifestyles?

I would say that focusing on some rock band punk who is the least problematic and not addressing the REAL issues shows stupidity or worse.

I have shared the following video before, but it shows us a little bit about the “baby eater” phenomena I elude to (again, one of my favorite videos of all time) and how we should band together to stop it:

h/t SHTFPlan , The Goon Squad and Fred On Everything

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Gas Got You Putin? Beano Won’t Help

Like I told Greg at The Goon Squad, I don’t trust any politician (foreign or domestic). But I do envy the man’s style (both videos shared at Greg’s place). Watch how he addresses the media with derision and laughs in their face at the ridiculousness of the question.

See how he is relentless towards the Big Money thieves, instead of the total capitulation and subservience to Big Money that our leadership shows on a daily basis.

Some claim he is some sort of savior (and he may be to Crimea and other Russian interests). Many believe that his purpose is because of “Christian Values” and that he understands the International Jewish attempts at world conquest. Personally, I find it difficult to believe someone with his background is some sort of Christ figure, but I Putin-jako-Hitler-fot-time.jpg-x-225x300feel he is not the “Official Story” idea of a murderous Hitler like Hillary Clinton and Zbigniew Brezezinski claim (I don’t believe Hitler was murderous and that the official story is a bunch of malarkey).

To the contrary, Hitler fought against the very same Jewish scoundrels that have taken over our country with the help of the likes of the submissive puppets in our government. There is a clear difference between how he handled the situation and how our foolish sycophants have handled it at the behest of these traitorous scallywags who took over our country even as far back as the early 1900′s or before.

See here, here, and here (just a few of my posts about WHO controls US policies).

Back to the “new Hitler” (Vlad the Bad): Does it not bother you when the face of lunacy and obvious dementia raises it ugly little head, in total slavish obedience to the Jewish neocon powers that control virtually every aspect of the REAL Imperium (aka the US) at the behest of a little shithole in the desert (aka the “Jewish Homeland”, Israel)?

How about when that trusted kosher (numb)skull and boney Senator, John “Pickle-Boy” Kerry (Kohn), thought he had some sort of clout that might instill fear into Putin? Think that had much effect or scared Putin in any way?

Now, about this Crimea thing: What I figure is, the top part of the Feddle Gummint got dropped on its head when it was little, and the rest is just asleep, or John Kerrymight as well be. We look to be ruled by a bus-station of dumb-ass rich brats in a constant state of martial priapism. I can’t understand it. Out of three hundred million Americans, and lots of them went to school and can pretty much read, we get a slick minor pol out of Chicago for President and Pickle-Boy Kerry for Secretary of State, God knows why. Before that, we had Hillary, former First Housewife. Even god couldn’t explain that. And they throw their weight around just like they had some.

Now Obama’s threatening Russia about the Crimea. He may know where it is. I admit the possibility. We live in a strange world, and unexpected things can happen. What I can’t see is, why he thinks the Ukraine is Washington’s business. Last I heard, the Crimea was hung off into the Black Sea by the Isthmus of Perekop, like a hornet’s nest from a peach tree.

Why do we care about it? I guess if it gets to be part of Russia, Arkansas is next to go.

Its the same old, same old. Jews, crypto-Jews, sycophantic Jew ass-kissers, ignorant “Judeo”-Christians, and all the brainwashed masses who believe that the international Jewish miscreants are benevolent and should be objects of admiration and affection, will demonize people who stand up to the sweJ and at the same time worship at their (Satan’s) feet. The fact is that Jews once had a stronghold on the Soviet Union (Russia), threatened the entire world with their idea of world supremacy, was aided by the kowtowing bootlickers in the west (led by the JewSA and the JewK), and now find themselves being thwarted by the “new Hitler” (and this time I mean it in the sense that Hitler’s Germany was the ONLY country to stand up against Jews in the last century, which is why they are so vilified by the Jews today).

One doesn’t have to worship Hitler (or Putin), but by God, I give them props for taking the stand that our criminally suck-up, stooge-like, doormat, Jew lackeys will never do. And neither will I.

It Ain’t


Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Simon Winchester’s Smooth Forked Tongue

Simon Winchester’s Smooth Forked Tongue

by DC Dave


The anonymous book-presentation questioner of best-selling author, Simon Winchester, referred to in my001c3e10_medium November 23, 2005, article, “No Source for Winchester’s Hanging-Priests Calumny,” was my friend, Hugh Turley.  The question at issue is the claim made by Winchester in his book, A Crack in the Edge of the World, that in the wake of the great earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1755 that Catholic priests roamed the streets and selected people for execution as heretics whom they blamed for causing the calamity.  I had first become aware of Winchester’s claim when I read it quoted as fact by columnist George Will in The Washington Post.  On December 1, I received the following communication from Mr. Turley:

This is just to keep you updated on the latest news regarding the story The Washington Post will not retract.  Simon Winchester has revealed himself when I finally cut off all of the exits. I offered him an out, but he would prefer to continue to lie. I recently discovered that Winchester lied to me about his itinerary when he told me via email on November 8th:

Updated-SimonWinchesDear Mr. Turley

I have received your e-mail, and will respond in detail as soon as I am able to. I mention this caveat simply because I begin a two week
 tour of Canada tomorrow; and then am due to go off to China.  It should not be difficult to find my source for the remark, and I will endeavour to do so just as soon as these touring commitments are complete. I hope you will understand the reason for any delay.

Simon Winchester

In this online article dated November 13th, I discovered he had a different itinerary: 
 “Currently in the middle of a punishing tour of the United States, he has been inundated with requests for interviews, speaking engagements and book signings. Speaking from Los Angeles, Winchester says the past few weeks have felt like little more than a blur of one indistinguishable hotel room after another. Rattling off his itinerary for the next two weeks, the list of cities includes Denver, Los Angeles (again), Houston, Austin, Madison, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, Boston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Chicago and Miami ?  Followed by a tour of Canada…. 
Once the tour is finished, Winchester will go back to Barnhill Farm, take care of his honey and begin the preparations for his new book, set in Beijing. Continuing his lifelong love affair with China, he will be going there for research….”

On November 30th when I discovered he was not honest with me about his travels, I sent him the following email yesterday and his response to my email follows:

Dear Mr. Winchester:

I spoke to you in Washington when you were at the Politics and Prose bookstore. I asked you about your statement that priests burned people following the disaster because your book states, “Catholic priests roamed around the ruins, selecting at random those they believed guilty of heresy and thus to blame for annoying the Divine, who in turn had ordered up the disaster. The truth-liespriests had them hanged on the spot.”
You said, “It was probably some of each, but I prefer burning.”

 I asked you for your source and you replied that very good sources could be found in your bibliography. You said you would point them out to me after your book signing. However at the end of the evening when almost everyone had left, you were unable to think of who your source might have been.
 You suggested that I email you. I did and you wrote:

”It should not be difficult to find my source for the remark, and I
will endeavour to do so just as soon as these touring commitments are
complete.  I hope you will understand the reason for any delay.”

I have been patient because I know you have had a busy touring schedule. 
 I understand that you will be returning to Barnhill Farm before you depart to China for research on your next book. I would appreciate it if 
before embarking on a new project you would tie up this loose end. 

Shortly after we communicated, Dr. David Shi, a professional historian and the president of Furman University, retracted a statement similar to your statement. In his column Dr. Shi said that he obtained the error from the Washington Post. 
 (now dead link)
 I think your source may have also been the Washington Post.  Am I correct?


Hugh Turley


And here is how Mr. Winchester responded:

screen-shot-2012-04-21-at-6-01-09-pmDear Mr. Turley,

I am sure you will understand that have no wish to be drawn into a protracted dispute over precisely who burned or hanged whom in Lisbon: 
 the principal purpose of my account was to describe the religious
reaction to the event, and thereby place the more rational popular
reaction after the San Francisco event into its proper context. But
please rest assured that if indeed I find in due course clear evidence
that it was city administrators or other secular figures who acted
most violently against the heretics who were blamed for the 1755
earthquake, and not the priests mentioned in my book, I will be sure
to make a correction. I would be most grateful if we could let the
matter rest there.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Winchester

On December 5, 2005, Mr. Turley responded to Mr. Winchester’s attempt at a brush-off after having promised publicly that he would duly furnish a source for his hanging-priests accusation:

Dear Mr. Winchester,

I am sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood my question. This is not
a dispute about who burned or hanged heretics. It is not a question of whether priests or secular figures were responsible. 

 Aristotle made clear in Posterior Analytics that before we ask, “how it is” we must first know that “it is.” Precisely the question is whether your statement that heretics were burned and/or hanged after the
Lisbon earthquake is true. 

First, you said you had sources in your bibliography. Then you promised to reveal calumny-defyour sources by email. You have failed to do what you promised. A major theme of your book rests entirely upon an assertion that has been shown to have no basis in fact. The burden is on you to provide some evidence. 

Theresa Carpinelli summarized your error when she wrote: The fact that this calumny has made its way from a 1991 astrology
book to a 2005 book written by an “Oxford-trained geologist,”
highlights a serious decline in scholarship, with a concomitant
increase in anti-clericalism. It will be to our own detriment to ignore this. Writers who are intent on portraying Lisbon’s deeply
religious residents, particularly her priests, as irrational
lunatics opposed to reason and rationality, fail to recognize the
irrational lunacy of allowing their own bias to overrun their
scholarship. They are twisting the facts to fit their pre-conceived notions. Calumny is a lie, and is therefore the antithesis of
rational thinking. So the truth of what really happened in Lisbon
puts those spreading this calumny on the side of irrationality. 

 You owe it to your readers and the public to provide support for an important claim in your book. Good scholarship and intellectual honesty require no less. You can’t really be serious that you “would be most grateful if we could let the matter rest,” can you? Are you really
content to let your slander, inadvertent or not, rest?

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Turley

Three weeks have now passed since Winchester received this last email from Turley.

It is now time to take stock of Winchester’s lies:

Broken Glass

  1. The written charge that priests had suspected heretics hanged in the wake of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake was a lie.
  2. The oral charge that they had them burned was also a lie.
  3. The confident assurance that he had good sources for the charge was a lie.
  4. The claim that he could not remember off-hand any of those “good” sources was, in all likelihood, also a lie.
  5. The description of his immediate itinerary was a lie, provided, like the others, to buy time.
  6. The promise that he would furnish his sources to his questioner has, it appears, turned out to be a lie as well.

If any of the charges I have made against Simon Winchester prove to be false, I will gladly retract them.  We should hope for as much from Winchester with respect to the good clerics of Lisbon.

David Martin

December 26, 2005

p.s.  The Simon Winchesters of this world, like the George Wills of this world, apparently believe that they have a right to stonewall the Hugh Turleys and Theresa Carpinellis of this world.  Here we see Winchester among other such privileged folk.


He’s the bald fellow in the middle next to Hillary Clinton.

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle

Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle

by DC Dave


It is hard to think of anything more subversive of our putatively free and democratic system than the penetration of our news media by secret, unaccountable government agents, unless it is the penetration—the “cognitive infiltration” in Cass Sunstein’s terminology—of groups of concerned, civic-minded individuals by those same agents.  Ladies and gentlemen, as a shining example of both, I give you Christopher Ruddy. reported last week that Ruddy’s will launch its own TV news network this June to compete with Fox for the conservative audience.  “How do you have something so successful in cable that nobody else wants to imitate or cut into their market share? It defies reason,” asks the 49-year-old Ruddy.

The Chris Ruddy I Know

Christopher Ruddy was only 29 when he came into my life.  I had been laboring pretty much in solitude in my inquiries into the death of President Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.   My motivations were mainly two:  I had a longstanding interest in the John F. Kennedy assassination and the press reaction to Oliver Stone’s JFK had brought the American press’s culpability in the crime, at least as accessories after the fact, forcefully to my attention.  As a response, I had just completed my first serious political writing, the long poem “Assassins,” which had no immediate outlet in those days before I was online.  I could not help but note a great similarity in the eagerness of the press to accept the official Foster suicide conclusion to their eager endorsement of the lone crazed gunman theory in the JFK case.  Second, the fact that Foster had graduated two years behind me at Davidson College and that, at about the same height, we had matched up in intramural basketball competition had given me something of a personal interest. (As a lifelong Democrat, I had voted for Bill Clinton just months before.)

It also helped that I was working in Washington, DC, but it helped a good deal less than you might think.  The only other people I could find who shared my skepticism of the official story in the Foster case were at the conservative media watchdog organization, Accuracy in Media (AIM).  Its director, the late Reed Irvine, was the main person there interested in the case, but my main point of contact with them was the late Bernard Yoh.  I almost never talked with Irvine.  I had attempted to get the Liberty Lobby involved, but they had demonstrated no interest.

Ruddy arrived upon the Foster scene some six months after the death with the first of a series of articles on January 27, 1994, in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post.  One can gather a little of my sense of excitement at his discoveries by scrolling down to the section headed “Enter Christopher Ruddy” in part 1 of my 6-part series, “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster.”  I immediately got in touch with him, and we would see quite a bit of each other in the months ahead.  When he came to Washington he would regularly call on Irvine, Washington correspondent for the conservative Telegraph of London, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Foster case researcher Hugh Turley of Hyattsville, MD, and me.

Ruddy told me that his interest in the case originated with a call from an unnamed reporter at the conservative Washington Times who had been stymied by his editors in his attempt to write the truth about the story.  Dan E. Moldea reported later in his book, A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm, that Ruddy told him that people at AIM were responsible for igniting his interest.  Now I seriously doubt that either story is true.

Ordered to Talk to Ruddy

One of the things that most impressed me about Ruddy in the beginning was that, unlike the other journalists who just took what was fed them by the government and passed it along as though they were doing independent reporting, many of whom had clearly not even bothered to go out to Fort Marcy Park, the obscure Civil War relic off the George Washington Parkway where Foster’s body was found, he appeared to have done some real shoe-leather journalism.  He had actually interviewed some of the people who were among the first to arrive at the park on the evening of July 20, 1993.  But here, with the wisdom of hindsight, is a memo for the record written by Turley in 1998:

In case anyone is still naïve enough to believe any investigative journalist in America would expose government corruption just look at how one of these reporters “found” his sources….

Christopher Ruddy gained a lot of fame for “digging” up information about the death of White House counsel Vincent Foster. 51k8OkgiNnL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ How did this reporter get those interviews with government witnesses that would not talk to anyone else?

Ruddy’s “sources” were ORDERED to talk to him!

“I was basically ordered to interview or ordered to speak with one of the reporters and the New York Post again, I was told to talk to this Ruddy person, Mr. Ruddy.” -Deposition by US Park Police Officer Kevin Fornshill for US Senate 6/12/94

“I just did it because I was ordered to do it [talk to Chris Ruddy].” -Deposition by Fairfax County EMS worker George Gonzalez for US Senate 7/20/94

Ruddy served as a spokesman for the government authorities.

Every member of the American press has gone along with the cover-up of the murder of White House official Vincent Foster.  Ruddy was a little different.  He created the illusion he was a courageous reporter on the side of truth.  Ruddy’s reporting was a farce all along and just another layer of the murder cover-up of by the American media.

That goes right to the heart of the matter.  In that first Ruddy article Gonzalez is identified as the first emergency worker and Fornshill as the first policeman on the scene at the park.  Had we been a little better versed in espionage tradecraft we would probably have recognized much earlier that Ruddy was playing the classic double agent role.  To be sure, he reported some things that seemed extremely damaging to the authorities, but his reports stayed very well contained.   We were like the enemy who had been shown some of the adversary’s secrets by a fake defector.  He bought credibility with us, while not doing all that much harm to the case of his ultimate employers.  The New York Post is a tabloid that is noted mainly for its witty and sensational headlines, and Ruddy later left it for a much more obscure suburban Pittsburgh newspaper owned by one of the heirs of the Andrew Mellon fortune, Richard Mellon Scaife.  This latter paper put “Pittsburgh” in front of its Tribune-Review name only about the time Ruddy arrived there.

But we really wanted to believe, like Lot in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, that there was at least one righteous person among America’s press.  There were early straws in the wind had we been more keen to recognize them.  To take one example, some of the key flaws in the government’s suicide case are to be found in the autopsy performed by the late Dr. James Beyer.  In the form that asks “X-rays taken” he had checked the box beside it that said “yes,” but he had elsewhere written that because the X-ray machine was broken, he had taken no X-rays.  This is of great importance because he also drew a picture of a half-dollar sized exit wound in the crown of the head in the picture of the body on the autopsy sheet. No one who was at the park than night detected any exit wound at all, much less the huge bloody mess that would have been blown out on the ground or vegetation down-range from Foster’s head.  X-rays would have undoubtedly shown the bullet still in Foster’s head.




James C. Beyer was deputy chief medical examiner in the Northern Virginia District for 28 years. (By Dayna Smith — The Washington Post)

Dr. Beyer had a bit of a checkered past.  In two notable instances in Fairfax County, VA, in which he had performed the autopsy, the police had ruled suicide when there were strong indications of murder. The first was that of 21-year-old Timothy Easley in 1989.  Four years after the initial ruling Easley’s girlfriend had confessed to stabbing him to death.The second case, that of 21-year-old college student Tommy Burkett, on its face was far more sinister.  The Burketts had returned home on a Sunday evening to find young Tommy dead of an apparent gunshot wound seated in a chair in an upstairs bedroom.  The family’s revolver was in his hand on his lap, but with the cylinder slightly ajar and the bullet hole in the wall behind him was not even close to being in the proper alignment if Tommy had shot himself as the police quickly concluded he had done.  Furthermore, there was fresh blood on the wall of the stairwell leading up to the bedroom and Tommy showed signs of having been beaten about the head.  Again, heavily relying upon Dr. Beyer’s autopsy, though, the police had quickly ruled suicide.  Later the parents were able to get the body exhumed and have an autopsy performed by another experienced forensic pathologist.  He discovered a broken jaw and numerous contusions that could not have been caused by the single gunshot.

I drove Ruddy to the Burkett’s home for him to interview them.  I was present when they told him that they had discovered that Tommy had been busted for marijuana and had had the charges dropped in exchange for working as an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  They had found many indications that Tommy had been beaten to death because of what he had learned and reported in his informant role.  They also told him of their attempts to get coverage of their story in the news.  They had talked to several reporters who had shown interest, but nothing ever got printed.  Then they had their phone system screened by a professional and found that they were being bugged.  After that they called a reporter for the local free weekly, the Chantilly Times, from a pay phone.  I had first read their amazing story there.  I was primarily an observer at the interview, but I distinctly remember that it was I and not Ruddy who broached the subject of The Washington Post.  The Burketts had not volunteered it, so I asked them “What about The Post?”

I can’t recall the reporter’s name, but one did come and interview them after they had found out about their phone bug and he responded excitedly to their story.  His editor killed the story, though, and to this day The Post, the same newspaper that has done more than any other to sell the Foster suicide line to the public, has not reported anything about the Burkett death.  Afterwards, on March 8, 1994, Ruddy had an article in the New York Post entitled “Foster Coroner Has Been Dead Wrong on Suicide Before.”  It is about the Easley and Burkett cases, but Oicthere’s not a peep about the DEA or the phone bugging or The Post’s news suppression.  Mainly, Dr. Beyer and the Fairfax County police come across as incompetent in Ruddy’s account.  One gets the same impression from his Appendix IV, “Case Histories of Dr. James Beyer” in his 1997 book, The Strange Death of Vincent FosterThe general corruption of the government beyond the Foster case and the role of the press as accomplices were apparently off limits.

Sometime later, something occurred that much more obviously should have brought Ruddy’s legitimacy into question in my eyes.  A colleague, hearing me voice skepticism over the Foster “suicide” conclusion, revealed to me that he had previously worked for the Mitre Corporation, and that they had installed the surveillance system around the White House compound.  He said, as you might expect, that it is state of the art and that it could tell you how closely Foster had shaved in the morning when he came to work.  As it happens, among the many gaping holes in the government’s case is the question of the time and the manner of Foster’s departure from the White House compound on the day of his death.  Officially, the last person to see him alive was the secret service agent on duty at the door at the west end of the White House.  There is no official record that we know of of his ever having left the fenced White House compound.  He could have simply been going to the Old Executive Office Building next door when he left the White House proper.  But when did Foster leave the compound?  Was he with anyone?  Was he in a car or on foot?  Was it his own car or someone else’s?  The surveillance camera should have provided a definite record.

I put the question to Ruddy.  A few days later he got back to me with the explanation that he had received from his “contact in the White House.”  Would you believe, those surveillance cameras had cramped President Clinton’s carousing, tom-catting style and he had had them removed, he said?  I passed that response on to my colleague, and he merely rolled his eyes in disbelief.  Had the surveillance camera issue ever been raised publicly, which Ruddy could have done, this obvious fallback position would never have survived public scrutiny.

Foster_handOther, subtler, indications that Ruddy was not what he appeared to be also began to emerge.  The mainstream press gave him publicity, but as something of a whipping boy.  It was similar to their treatment of the obviously phony outfit, Citizens United.  Two instances stand out.  On March 7, 1994, the day before his article on Dr. Beyer, Ruddy had a New York Post article headlined “Cops Made Photo Blunder at Foster Death Site” that began this way: “The U.S. Park Police never took a crucial crime-scene photo of Vincent Foster’s body before it was moved during the investigation into the death of the White House deputy counsel, FBI sources told The Post.”  Not long after that, ABC Evening News came out with a report that showed a black revolver in the dead Foster’s hand, which they said they had obtained from the Park Police.  Ruddy was left with egg on his face.

Worse than that, Ruddy had later collaborated with the Strategic Investment newsletter on a video on the Foster case in which the confident claim was made that the gun-in-hand photo was phony because it showed the gun in the right hand when, in fact, Foster was left-handed.  That set him up to be on CBS’s 60 Minutes as the very symbol of the lunacy of the Foster-case skeptics.   Mike Wallace got Ruddy to admit before a national audience that there was no good evidence that Foster was, in fact, left-handed, but at that point he stressed that the video was not his, but was a Strategic Investment production.  “But you edited the tape, didn’t you?” Wallace shot back, and Ruddy could only sheepishly confirm that he had.

Again, with the wisdom of hindsight, it is abundantly clear that both public relations disasters were planned by those orchestrating the cover-up, and Ruddy’s intentional “blunders” and his anonymous FBI “sources” were all a part of it.

Ruddy was also publicized by the Clinton White House itself as being right at the epicenter of Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy.”  They produced a volume in 1995 awkwardly titled “The Communications Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” and it was provided to the media in January of 1997.  The main villain in the story is Ruddy’s employer Richard Mellon Scaife, who ostensibly financed many right-wing, anti-Clinton publications and organizations, but Ruddy himself is also a major figure.

The beginning of my final estrangement from Ruddy began on a positive note.  We had gone to some Foster-related function together and I was carrying with me the book I was reading during my bus and subway commute at the time, Barbara Tuchman’s The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World before the War, 1890-1914.  It had a long section on the Dreyfus Affair in France.  I had been struck by one passage for its similarity to the Foster case and I showed it to Ruddy.  Boiling down the position of General Auguste Mercier and his case against Captain Alfred Dreyfus, Tuchman had written, “All the strength, except truth, was on his side.”

“You should write something up showing the parallels between the two cases,” suggested Ruddy.  So I did, and “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster” is the result.  One of the main “strengths” that Mercier had was a generally compliant press, and I stress that point heavily throughout what became a six-part series.  Ruddy’s reaction after reading what is now Part 1 was not at all what I thought it would be.  I had made him something of a heroic figure, likening him to the young Dreyfus defender, Bernard Lazare.

Ruddy seemed thoroughly displeased with what I had written, but he only seized upon one item to object to.  “You said that I wrote that the Park Police didn’t take any crime scene photographs, and that’s not what I said.  I was talking about the photo of the overall scene that would have made it clear where the body was in the park, not crime scene photos generally.”

If that was the information he meant to convey by his article he certainly did a very poor job of communicating because no objective reader could come to any other conclusion than that no crime scene photographs at all had been taken.  But Ruddy had his excuse to reject my work, and he was sticking to it.

In reality, I believe, Ruddy had a big problem with my pointing out the press complicity in the cover-up. *  Perhaps an even bigger problem than that was that he had been chosen to lead the parade of the skeptics, and with my “Dreyfus” paper, I had moved up pretty close to the front.

Enter Knowlton and Clarke

The others who moved up toward the head of the skeptic parade managed to sink Ruddy’s credibility completely.  They are the witness, Patrick Knowlton, who had happened by the Fort Marcy Park parking lot to relieve himself, his lawyer John Clarke, and the aforementioned Turley, who assisted them.  What transpired after that is well laid out in Sam Smith’s Progressive Review here.  My complete undressing of Ruddy can be found in Part 2 of “Dreyfus.”  There I reveal that Ruddy first tried to undermine them with a whispering campaign against Clarke and in the end left out the story of Knowlton’s lawsuit against several FBI agents from his 1997 book, all the while ignoring the most salient fact that Knowlton had revealed, which was that Foster’s car was not at the park when his body was.witnes1

When Clarke was able to get his devastating letter appended to Kenneth Starr’s official report on Foster’s death by the three-judge panel that appointed him, and over Starr’s strenuous objections, and that fact was blacked out by the entire American press, Ruddy participated in the blackout at the time. ** For all practical purposes, he was completely out of the closet—though in virtually the reverse way as CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

When Newsmax started up in 1998 with Ruddy as its head, we longtime Ruddy watchers never thought of it as anything more than a propaganda operation.  Ruddy was being rewarded for a job well done in misdirecting the public and helping keep the lid on the Foster case, similar to the way in which members of Starr’s cover-up team, Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates were rewarded with federal judgeships.


As the head of Newsmax, Ruddy has further embellished the impression that he was only a right-wing extremist out to get the Clintons.  For the most part it has turned out standard Fox News, Weekly Standard-type war-hawkish establishment conservative fare.  At the same time he began a slow and steady retreat from all the good work that pointed so clearly to the fact that Vince Foster was murdered.  I described the Ruddy technique in a short article in 1999, “More Ruddy Trickery”:

newsmax-logo-180x180Christopher Ruddy, investigative reporter for Richard Mellon Scaife’s Pittsburgh Tribune Review, editor of the online service Newsmax, and author of the book The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, is portrayed by the mainstream media as the leading critic of the government in the Foster case. The fact that he is singled out for publicity by that disreputable crowd should be sufficient evidence of his phoniness. The numerous self-discrediting things he has done such as claiming that the Park Police took no crime-scene photographs and that Foster was left-handed when the gun was found in his right hand also give him away. Lest we tend to forget about his deceitfulness and treachery he keeps reminding us with little gems on his web site such as promoting Foster cover-up books by the likes of Ann Coulter and Howard Kurtz.

He contributes to the Foster murder cover-up most recently almost in passing in an article comparing the thwarted investigation of Chinagate with obstructions of the Senate “investigation” of tangential occurrences around the Foster death (as though the Senate were serious about either investigation). Here is the telling passage:

Thus, one of the great mysteries of Whitewater slipped between the cracks: Did Foster know about the Hale office search? If the answer is yes, then he knew that Whitewater was about to explode, which no doubt caused him great distress.

Just hours after the Hale office search warrant was issued, Foster’s body was found in a remote Virginia Park; his gunshot death ruled a suicide.” (Friday, June 11, 3:37 am, “The Aborted Chinagate Search: Deja Foster?”)

Get that, dear reader? Sure sounds as though Foster killed himself because he was distressed over Whitewater, doesn’t it? Thus does the great Clinton critic, Ruddy, cover for Clinton and the whole sorry crowd responsible for Foster’s murder and the cover-up that continues by reinforcing the absurd line that Foster killed himself because he was somehow “disturbed.” We ought to all be more than a little disturbed over the machinations of people like Christopher Ruddy.


Ronald Kessler

Ruddy’s completely folded tent for truth about the Foster death became completely obvious with the appointment of arch-Foster-cover-up writer, Ronald Kessler as Newsmax’s chief Washington correspondent in 2006.  In his book on the White House Kessler devotes 11 pages to the Foster death, and it’s all pure cover-up, the apparent complete antithesis of Ruddy’s book on the subject.  You can read about it in my article “Kessler, Ruddy, and the Parade of Lies.”

Watching this sorry performance by Ruddy, one can’t help but feel for the 23 out of 32 customer reviewers on of his book on the Foster death and all the people they represent, who gave the book five out of five stars and wrote glowing, trusting reviews.  They could see that he was on to something.  Now he seemed to be giving them a big “never mind.”  But when it comes to betrayal by the putative Irish Catholic Ruddy, they hadn’t seen anything yet.

While Ruddy’s image as the Foster-death truth-seeker steadily ebbed, his image as a garden variety Clinton hater flowed.  It probably reached its high-water mark in 2002 in a book he wrote with Carl Limbacher, Jr., Catastrophe: Clinton’s Role in America’s Worst Disaster that can be summed up by the picture on the cover.  Bill Clinton is in the foreground and a disintegrating twin tower is in the background.  The book parrots the official 19-Arab-hijacker line but blames the Clinton administration for carelessly letting it happen with its presumed softness on terrorism.  Though clearly a very poor excuse for a book, the Ruddy handlers at Newsmax must have been pleased by how well it achieved its polarizing objective.  As of this date, 15 of the 39 customer reviewers and had given it five stars and 22 had given it only one star.

The Born-Again Ruddy

meet-the-newest-republican-kingmaker-he-also-solved-the-newspaper-revenue-problemNow, in the most cynical move yet, as if to show how contemptuous the opinion molders are of the American public—at least those who think of themselves as conservative—Ruddy has been permitted to cash in his Clinton-hater card.  Worse than that, he has even done it by seeming to take back all the good apparent truth-seeking work he did when he first came upon the national journalistic scene.

“He has become friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and won’t rule out supporting Hillary for president in 2016,” writes Businessweek.  Further on, they say this:

In a recent Newsmax editorial lambasting Rand Paul for dredging up the Monica Lewinsky affair, he wrote, “As one of the participants in those battles back then who was a critic of President Clinton, I can say with some degree of certainty we made a mistake.” About the only area in which he remains a staunch party-line conservative is foreign policy.

Take that, all you folks who went to the trouble of reading The Strange Death of Vincent Foster and especially the ones who wrote good reviews about it online.  He’s a changed man.  Hear him tell Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that he was wrong.  He cares no more about the truth now than do his newfound friends, as if he ever did.  And lest you think he’s just talking about the Lewinsky business, which I can’t recall his ever having written anything about, look who has kind words to say about the “reformed” Ruddy:

headshotRuddy’s own conservatism, despite a fervent anti-Obama streak, is far from Tea Party obstructionism. “People mellow or change or get perspective as they age,” says liberal journalist Joe Conason, often Ruddy’s foil during the Clinton battles, who now counts him as a friend. “Or most people do. He’s not this right-wing kid that he was.”

See, it was only because he was a right-winger that Ruddy cared about the Foster case.  In truth, Joe Conason is to Chris Ruddy as David Corn is to Joe Goulden.  Conason is the co-author with the infamous Gene Lyons of The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy the Clintons.  To get some flavor of that book, all one needs to do is to check out my article with the subtitle, “Gene Lyons, Paid Liar, Murder Enabler.” In that article I meticulously document the statement, “Lyons’ lies are important because they are so enormous and outrageous, they are easily proven to be lies, and they go right to the heart of the Foster murder and its cover-up.”

As for the Conason-Lyons book, one can get some idea of its quality from their very first mention of Foster’s death at the beginning of chapter 6:  “[Foster’s] body was discovered at 5:45 P.M. by officers from the U.S. Park Service police, who treated the incident from the very first as a routine investigation, made politically sensitive only later by the identity of the victim.”

There is not a single word of truth in that statement, even according to the officially approved story.  It’s abundantly evident from this one FT MARCY PARKsentence that neither of these shills has ever even set foot in Fort Marcy Park or they would know how extremely unlikely it is that any patrolling policeman would have stumbled across Foster’s body where it was found in a back corner of the little-visited park.  The official story is that a passing motorist who had gone there to urinate spotted him, though there are some serious questions about that story as well.  And had the Park Police treated the matter routinely, they would have followed the police manual and treated this violent death by gunshot as a murder until they had accumulated sufficient evidence to disprove it.  They did not do that.  And an absolutely amazing number of things went on in the park that night that were very far from routine.  Clarke, Knowlton, and Turley heavily document those things in their court submission/book Failure of the Public Trust.  Furthermore, the Fairfax County emergency workers who were at the scene that evening recorded the death as the result of a “likely homicide.”

Conason and Lyons, according to their index, mention Ruddy on 10 pages and Evans-Pritchard on 11 pages, and almost every time it’s in terms of the blackest villainy.  They weren’t just political opponents of the president and his wife, after all, they were part of a “campaign to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.”  However, also according to the index, two very important names connected to these two vilified journalists are completely missing from the book.  They are Miguel Rodriguez and Patrick Knowlton.  Rodriguez was initially Starr’s lead investigator who apparently really tried to get at the truth, but resigned in disgust.  In my review of Ruddy’s book I say that his Chapter 9 about that episode alone would make a very good movie.  For his part, by far the most important thing Evans-Pritchard did related to the Foster case was to ferret out Knowlton and interview him.  Only then did Knowlton know that his FBI interrogators had falsified what he had told them in their official reports.

The only index listing concerning Foster’s death directly in the Conason-Lyons book is tellingly entitled “suicide, rumors concerning,” drawing from #3 of the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.” The subject comes up on 26 pages in the book, but somehow they can’t find the occasion to mention either Rodriquez *** or Knowlton.

Christopher Ruddy is now telling us in so many words that we should believe what they have written about the Foster death, not what he has written.  Just think about that when you watch anything from his upcoming network news production.

Whose Operation?


If Newsmax is an operation, whose operation is it?  Businessweek tells us that the first investor in Newsmax was former CIA director William Casey’s daughter Bernadette.  That looks like a good lead, but in all likelihood what it means is that we can rule them out.

Looking back at Ruddy’s work on the Foster case, the most likely candidate by far would seem to be the FBI.  Throughout his writings he referred constantly to one anonymous FBI source or another.  He obviously had connections there.  He also covered up for them.  He concealed their active involvement in the investigation from beginning to end.  According to Ruddy, anything that was ever done wrong it was the work of the bungling Park Police or that insidious Clinton crowd at the White House.  It was never the FBI.  Maybe they’re too obvious as well.

Maybe the answer is to be found in an important bit of information that is left out of the Businessweek article.  They tell us that Ruddy studied abroad at the London School of Economics, which is unusual enough for this 12th child of a policeman and a homemaker, but they fail to tell us where else he has studied abroad, at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  Imagine that.  Businessweek says that Ruddy comes from a Catholic family that didn’t regularly go to church.  Did the mother, perhaps, take them to synagogue, instead?

It’s not because of the rather conventional pro-Israel neocon politics of the Newsmax web site that I raise the question.  Once I happened to make some rather routine critical comment about Israel, and Ruddy’s sharp rejoinder in disagreement really surprised me.  He seemed to take what I was saying about Israel personally.  I recently ran across an observation by Professor Kevin MacDonald that reminded me very much of how Ruddy reacted at that time:   “I have encountered many liberal, politically correct Jews who react vociferously (almost violently) to the most innocuous comments about any topic related to Israel or Jews.”

Take out the liberal and politically correct part, and that was Ruddy, though I’m not sure now about the liberal part.  There really wasn’t any real point in taking issue with my offhand observation, it seemed to me, and he definitely wanted to stay on my good side, but it was like he couldn’t help himself.  I just marked Israel off as anything I could make small talk about with Ruddy, and we never found anything further to disagree about that I can think of.

There’s also the coziness and mutual admiration between Ruddy and the duplicitous arch-Zionist Alan Dershowitz that Businessweek does mention and Ruddy refers to as well in his interview by Joe Scarborough.  Could it just be the fact that they’re both skunks that they have this affinity for one another or is something else going on?

Now it’s quite possible for a crypto-Jew, if that’s what Ruddy is, to be working for the CIA or the FBI, but it also brings another intelligence organization into the possible Newsmax mix, and that would be the Mossad.

Finally, Businessweek hints that Ruddy is motivated by personal pecuniary considerations as much or more than by any political ideals: “Ruddy earns what he describes as a modest six-figure salary, but he’s plainly as interested in his own success as in advancing his conservative agenda.”

Let us take a stab at what that six-figure salary amounts to.  What would the Biblical thirty pieces of silver be worth these days?



* I had previously not gone into detail as to what “all the strength” was that General Mercier had on his side in the Dreyfus case.  It included a very cooperative press.  As it happens, one of the reporters who covered the trial that convicted Dreyfus on the basis of secret evidence was Theodor Herzl, reporting for an Austrian newspaper.  He was part of that compliant press at the time because he reported that Dreyfus was probably guilty.  Later he would say that it was the abiding anti-Semitism revealed by the railroading of Dreyfus that moved him to found the Zionism movement.

**Ruddy later had a catch-up article about the Knowlton-Clarke addendum.  Here is Hugh Turley’s assessment of it:

Some have posted Ruddy’s November 4th article published almost ONE MONTH after the October 10th event as evidence that the addendum to Ken Starr’s Foster report was reported to the American people.  The date of the Ruddy article is never posted with the article NOT EVEN AT RUDDY’S WEBSITE because it is embarrassingly late.

I had to shame Ruddy into doing the story.  In October Ruddy told me he would NOT report the order from the US Circuit Court of appeals because he “was not a court reporter”.  Ruddy said, “I am an investigative journalist, you have to get someone that covers the courts to do that story.”  It was good that Ruddy finally got it published in the small circulation Pittsburgh paper but he had many facts wrong in the article.

Here is what I wrote about Ruddy’s article on November 10, 1997:

Ruddy is known to most folks, including Mike Wallace of CBS, as the “leading journalist on the Foster story.”  Too bad he does not lead with the correct facts.  Ruddy’s November 4th article reporting that Patrick Knowlton’s attorney won approval of the court to attach a 20 page letter to Ken Starr’s report over Starr’s objections deserves criticism on several points.

It is not a well known but the witness Knowlton and Ruddy are barely on speaking terms. It is certain Ruddy did not fact check his story with Patrick Knowlton or his attorney John Clarke.  Chris did call me to tell me he was doing a story on Knowlton but he did not seek advice so the omissions and errors in his story are his own.

One of DC Dave Martin’s 13 techniques for truth suppression [now 17] is “To come half clean.”  This is the technique used by Ruddy throughout his article. Ruddy’s article about Knowlton’s attachment appeared in the weekday edition and lowest circulation edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  Ruddy downplays Knowlton’s historic attachment by running the story with a lengthy article about Arkansas State trooper trivia as if that was more important.  The Knowlton article begins, “Two Arkansas state troopers are not alone in complaining…”

Ruddy can be extremely accurate when he wants to be.  I know because I have seen him in action typing on my own computer keyboard and he has edited and corrected press releases for me. Therefore his obvious errors jump off the page at me since they are supposedly from the “leading reporter on the Foster story.”

Ruddy wrote, “Knowlton, the first person known to have been in Fort Marcy Park on the afternoon of Foster’s death…” This is incorrect because everyone familiar with the case knows that another man was already at Fort Marcy Park when Knowlton arrived.  We’ve seen this man’s face too. [published in Ruddy's first book]

Ruddy wrote, “[Knowlton] was surprised he was not asked to review the [Starr's] report.”  This statement is a total fabrication by Ruddy.  I know Pat Knowlton well and I know he never expected Starr to ask him to review his report and he was certainly not surprised that he was not asked.  The statute allows that persons mentioned in the report may submit comments and the court would decide if those comments would be added and if so in whole or in part

Ruddy wrote that John Clarke, “filed an appeal…supplying more that 118 exhibits and a 400 page report…” What Ruddy calls a “report” is in fact a civil rights lawsuit against FBI agents filed last year under seal.  It was unsealed on November 12, 1996 in U.S. Court in the District of Columbia.  A press conference was held that day announcing the lawsuit and it was attended by all of the major newspapers, television networks, Phil Weiss was there and so was Ambrose Evan-Pritchard.  Ruddy, “the leading reporter on the Foster story” did not attend Knowlton’s press conference.  Like the entire rest of the media (with the exception of the Washington Times which did a short, inaccurate, skeptical inside-page bump-and-run) Ruddy did not report it.  I was not surprised that Ruddy does not call the document what it is and instead calls it simply “a report.”  Expect a ruling soon by Judge Penn on the status of Knowlton’s civil suit.

Ruddy wrote, “The judges voted unanimously to allow Knowlton and his attorney to review the report.”

This is completely false.  Knowlton and Clarke did not see Starr’s entire report until it was made public on October 10.  Ruddy should know this because Clarke refers to this fact in the 20-page attachment.  Clarke wrote, “Even though our review is limited by the fact that we were provided only the passages reprinted below so the context is unclear…”

Ruddy wrote, “Knowlton, noting numerous discrepancies and omissions in the Starr report, filed a 20 page memorandum…” This is false again because Knowlton did not read Starr’s report until October 10 and if he and Clarke had the 20 pages would have packed even more dynamite.  Ruddy calls Clarke’s 20-page letter a “memorandum” giving the historic letter an informal and insignificant spin.  Ruddy also refers to Clarke’s letter as a “memo”.

I could go on with smaller errors but as usual Ruddy failed to point out the importance of Patrick Knowlton and that is that Patrick Knowlton did not see Vincent Foster’s car at Fort Marcy Park when Foster was already dead.  This important fact is misstated in Ruddy’s book and now completely ignored in Ruddy’s catch-up Knowlton article.

Credit should be given where credit is due and now three and one half weeks late Ruddy does report that Knowlton did attach 20 pages to Starr’s report.  So at least Ruddy can say, “I reported that” to maintain his leadership role as “the leading reporter on the Foster story.”

*** Ruddy, for some reason, told everyone that Rodriguez spells his first name “Miquel” with a “q” instead of the conventional “g”.  That’s why you will find it misspelled throughout my “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” just as it is misspelled in Ruddy’s book, in The Failure of the Public Trust, Evans-Prichard’s The Secret Life of Bill Clinton (not his choice of titles, he tells me), and all the writings of Reed Irvine.   Only when we found and published Rodriquez’s resignation letter did we realize that Ruddy had not told us the truth.  Ruddy, like all of the mainstream press has ignored this letter that did not come to light until 2009 just as he and they have ignored Rodriguez’s crucial memorandum that we published in September of 2013.

David Martin

March 14, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Is Ukraine’s New Prime Minister a Jew?

Is Ukraine’s New Prime Minister a Jew?

by DC Dave


A few days ago I received an email sent out to a number of people that proclaimed excitedly that the new interim prime minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is a Jew.  The evidence presented in support of the assertion was this sentence on his Wikipedia page: “He was born to in a family of Jewish-Ukrainian professors of the Chernivtsi University.” The fact that he says that he is now a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, also noted on the Wikipedia page, was discounted by the sender of the email as simply a matter of convenience for him.

My own view is that people should not be evaluated based upon who their antecedents were or are but upon who “they” are.  I expressed that view with my poem, “Against Birthism,” some time ago:

I think that people should be assessed

On individual worth,

Not, as is all too often done,

On accident of birth.

Sergey Ratushniak

“Anti-Semite” Sergey Ratushniak

Not everyone thinks that way, though.  In 2009 a political opponent of Yatsenyuk, Uzhgorod Mayor Sergey Ratushniak according to Interfax News Agency said, “Impudent Jew Yatsenyuk, who was successfully serving to thieves, who are at power in Ukraine, is using criminal money to plow ahead towards Ukraine’s presidency.”

Anti-Jewish feeling is still strong among many Ukrainians, not in a small part for the genocidal policies imposed upon them by Joseph Stalin, many of whose top henchmen were Jewish.  Even though the post-Communist, Vladimir Putin-run Russia has reflected Russia’s own anti-Jewish backlash from the Bolshevik era, the most ardent of current Ukrainian nationalists tend to lump Russians and Jews together as alien meddlers in Ukraine:

“There is a need for Ukraine to be finally returned to Ukrainians” from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia that runs Ukraine today.”


Arseniy Yatsenyuk (a Jew?) and Oleh Tyahnybok (a neo-Nazi?) buddy-buddy with John “Insane” McCain

Nationalist leader Oleh Tyahnybok spoke those words in a speech ten years ago.  Most recently he was one of the key figures along with Yatsenyuk in the ouster of President Viktor Yanyukovich.  Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows.

Returning to the title question, more than raw emotion or political demagoguery can be behind the labeling of Yatsenyuk as a Jew.  Orthodox Jews, as it turns out, agree with Mayor Ratushniak that regardless of the religion that he currently professes, Yatsenyuk is a Jew.  With them, accident of birth is everything.  His mother was a Jew so he’s a Jew as they see it.

The Larger Perspective

This bloodline-based view, of course, is very far from the Christian position.  As a professed convert to Christianity, Yatsenyuk should be embraced.

Within the entire context, however, there are, indeed, reasons to be wary of Yatsenyuk’s profession of the Christian faith.  First, there is the local context of Ukraine.  The Jewish Virtual Library reports that since the fall of the Soviet Union, 80% of Ukraine’s Jews have left the country.  This is a truly remarkable exodus, taking place, as it has, in little more than two decades.  That same Jewish web site states, “Many Ukrainian citizens still distrust Ukrainian Jews and believe that the Jews’ primary loyalty is to the Jewish people and not to the Ukrainian nation.” The formerly large Jewish community, descended mainly from ancient Khazaria, is now down to only .2% of the population of Ukraine according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.  All indications are that anyone with political ambition who openly professes to be Jewish would face quite an uphill climb.

Then there is the larger historical context.  Here is the Wikipedia definition for something that has been a rather widespread practice for a long time:  “Crypto-Judaism is the secret adherence to Judaism while publicly professing to be of another faith; practitioners are referred to as ‘crypto-Jews’ (origin from Greek kryptos – κρυπτός, ‘hidden’).”  The practice is often excused as the natural response to forced conversion or expulsion from the country such as occurred in Spain.  The “force” motivating the “conversion” can be less draconian, however.  It can simply be social pressure, of the type we currently see in Ukraine.  Even in Spain, there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem when it comes to the question of forced conversion and crypto-Judaism.  The Spanish Inquisition began in 1478 and the expulsion order came in 1492.  A major motive for the Inquisition was that many actual Jews, of the same group that had frequently acted as a fifth column within Christian Spain in their struggle with the Moors for control of the Iberian Peninsula, had risen to positions of power and influence within the church and the state by pretending to be Christians.

Unfortunately for Mr. Yatsenyuk, his accident of birth, his heritage, places him almost automatically under a cloud of suspicion when he says that he is a Christian.  The heritage goes back much farther than the 15th century, as well.  The following is from page 159 of Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics:


Gilad Atzmon

Both in Exodus and The Book of Esther, the author of the text manages to predict the kind of accusations that would be leveled against Jews for centuries to come, such as power-seeking, tribalism and treachery.

As in the Holocaust religion, in the Book of Esther it is the Jews who believe in themselves, in their own power, in their uniqueness, sophistication, ability to conspire, ability to take over kingdoms, ability to save themselves.  The Book of Esther is all about empowerment.  It conveys the essence and metaphysics of Jewish power.

Within that context, the practice of crypto-Judaism for the purpose of power seeking falls under the larger and more serious category of treachery.  Anyone who might tend to doubt the treachery charge is invited to read my article, “The Zionist Mentality and Method” or to study the Lavon Affair or the assault on the USS Liberty.  Anyone familiarizing himself with those episodes will be much more inclined to believe the allegations that Jewish treachery was behind the James Forrestal and John Kennedy assassinations and the outrage of 9/11.

Perhaps the most important context in which to examine the ethnicity of Arseniy Yatsenyuk is that of the rivalry between the United States and Russia, while looking at who really runs things in each country.  Russia under Putin appears to be coming to grips with the damage to its society wrought by the excessive power wielded in the country by the Jews.  As such, Russia may be described as in its post-Two Hundred Years Together period, referring to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s two-volume work that has still not been made available to the English-speaking world.  For its part, the United States has never been more in Jewish thrall than it is currently (also see video below).

Ukraine lies right at the fault line between a post-atheist-Communist Russia that is returning to its Christian roots and the clearly Jewish-dominated U.S. Empire.

When we bear that in mind the intercepted telephone conversation between U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffry Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in which Nuland uttered the obscenity directed at the European Union takes on added significance:

Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario.

Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in…he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a… three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?


Ms Nuland pointing out
her husband’s shortcomings


Mr Nuland
aka Robert Kagan

Nuland, whose family name was originally Nudelman, is the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), noted for the 2000 document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that speaks wistfully about the inevitably slow pace of massively increased military mobilization and a more aggressive foreign policy, primarily in the Middle East, in the absence of “a new Pearl Harbor.”   In the intercepted phone call Nuland reveals a certain closeness to “Yats,” with whom she has clearly been in contact and who is her choice for the position that he currently holds.  The call also reveals that in our meddling in the Ukraine we have also been cultivating the nationalist firebrand, Oleh Tyahnybok, apparently upon the theory that anyone would be better than the pro-Russia elected president Yanyukovich, though Nuland wants him “on the outside” advising.  This playing with fire is reminiscent of the same sort of thing that we have done in Syria and Libya.

More Treachery?

When I was well into this essay, on Wednesday, March 6, evidence of just the sort of treachery we are talking about came to light with respect to developments in Ukraine.  A second important telephone call has been intercepted and put on the Internet.  In this case it is between the foreign minister of Estonia, Urmas Paet, and EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton (POST edited: see video below)

In that telephone call Paet reveals that the fatalities among anti-government demonstrators in Kiev and the ones among police were likely caused by the same provocateurs:

Paet: “All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. … Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”

Ashton: “I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh.”

Paet: “It already discreditates (sic) this new coalition.”

Indeed it does, but continuing the same “treachery” theme, while the news of this important new phone intercept was reported in the British mainstream press, U.S. mainstream news coverage the first day was confined to brief online mention in the magazine New RepublicOn the second day, CNN and Reuters had stories confirming that the phone tape was completely authentic but with an accompanying statement from Paet that his words didn’t mean what they clearly seem to mean.  With those small exceptions, this important news has been blacked out by a national press that has been busy whipping up anti-Russian and anti-Putin fervor and support for the odd lot now running Ukraine.


To our knowledge, the major U.S. news organs have made no mention at all of interim Prime Minister Yatsenyuk’s ethnic or religious affiliations.  Should they do so one can be virtually certain that he will simply be blandly called a Ukrainian Greek Catholic.  As we have seen, one who might suggest otherwise is not necessarily bigoted or rigidly Orthodox; rather, he is prudent.

David Martin

March 6, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

H-2A Kingpin Stumbles on H-2B

H-2A Kingpin Stumbles on H-2B

Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?  Part 2

by DC Dave

It reported the news exactly three weeks after the fact and one week after we wrote our long analysis of the case.  The Washington Post, though, has finally broken the national silence on the federal indictment of the man who has perhaps done more than any one person to change the ethnic makeup of this country over the past quarter century.  Slave ships brought Africans to work in America’s plantations in the 18th and 19th centuries; Stan Eury brought Mexicans—and is still bringing Mexicans—for what some call the “Modern Day Slavery” of the “new American plantation.

The alien smuggling dimension is absent, the story was written not by a Post reporter but by a free lancer in Winston-Salem, and it’s somewhat buried away on page A-16, but it does contain some important new information.  The person identified only with the initials “S.P.” in the indictment and who is the source of many of the incriminating allegations against Eury and his daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Farrell, is identified by The Post as one Stanley Porter.  Porter, The Post reveals, has already been convicted of visa fraud and sentenced to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine and is cooperating with authorities.  This is all very bad news, indeed, for Eury and Farrell.  Similar to the typical federal drug conspiracy case, Porter is the little fish that is being used to help the Feds land the much bigger fish.  But often in those cases the little fish, for pleading guilty and cooperating, gets a lighter sentence than what Porter received.  It really looks like Eury and his daughter are looking at some serious prison time if convicted.  Forty of the visa-fraud charges are against Farrell and only one is against Eury, The Post reminds us, but each count carries as much as a 10-year prison sentence.

Further indications that something very unusual is happening here and that someone, if not the President himself, has “gone Bulworth” and is actually doing the right thing for once is provided by this passage from The Post:

Criminal prosecutions for H-2B violations are rare, said Jennifer Rosenbaum, the legal director for the National Guestworker Alliance, based in New Orleans. But she said that abuse of the program is common, with employers asking for more workers than they need and requesting the workers for periods far past when there is no longer any work for them to do. Both actions inflate the size of the labor pool and reduce workers’ ability to advocate for better pay and working conditions, she said.

Being moved to different employers is common as well, Rosenbaum said. This underscores the imbalance in the employee-employer relationship, she said, as guest workers cannot go in search of jobs on their own. Employees in the H-2B program, unlike H-2A workers, are not provided housing, reducing an employer’s costs and the incentive to provide sufficient hours for all workers, Rosenbaum said.

“This case takes a comprehensive look at how companies are gaming the system to disadvantage U.S. and foreign workers as well as companies that play by the rules,” she said.

Stan ncga

Stan “hooknose” Eury

Rosenbaum describes the sort of thing that we noted in the previous article that Eury himself had been doing for years with the H-2A program, and on a much larger scale than in the case of the current indictment.  We suggested that the focus upon his H-2B scams might be simply tactical on the part of the Feds.  A more cynical explanation, though, could be in order, and it has to do with the distinctive limitations on the two programs.  A national cap limits H-2B; H-2A is limited by the ability of employers to provide housing.  H-2B pits labor contractors against one another.  Stanley Porter set up the Winterscapes company, apparently at Eury’s instigation, to get into the country as many H-2B workers as possible early in the federal fiscal year before the cap limited him.  In doing so, he made it more difficult for other users of H-2B to beat the cap.  Could it be that Eury finally went too far and had begun stepping on the toes of people with even more influence than he had?

Could the offended party have been, say, a national landscaping business that uses a number of H-2B workers and is big enough that it would not need to contract with a middleman like Eury to get its workers from Mexico?  It and similar national companies whether they be in landscaping or perhaps the hotel business would not be very pleased to discover that when they tried to get their H-2B workers, the cap had already been reached, partly because of Eury’s dodges.

Notice that the charges primarily date back to activities in 2008.  Federal investigators about that time interviewed my contacts in North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission.  One gets the impression that this case has been tied up rather neatly for quite some time but had not been allowed to go forward until something tipped the balance against Eury.  The general media silence about the indictment, though, particularly in North Carolina, suggests that the balance of power still hasn’t been tipped completely.

Business as Usual


We can get a better appreciation of what a curious—and possibly momentous—turn of events the big indictment of Eury and daughter is by having a look at David Seminara’s “Dirty Work: In-Sourcing American Jobs with H-2B Workers.” The date on the current online version is January 2010, but there is a note saying that this is only an update of an earlier version.  What is being described has been going on for quite a long time.  Below is a selection of Seminara’s salient points:

Despite credible allegations and even convictions for fraud and abuse of both H-2B workers and the program in general, neither10-Things-That-Will-Happen-If-Barack-Obama-Continues-To-Systematically-Legalize-Illegal-Immigration the Department of Labor (DOL) nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ever barred a U.S. company from filing H-2B petitions. Some repeat offenders continue to have their petitions approved to this day.

Industries that are particularly heavy users of the H-2B program include landscaping, forestry, hotels and restaurants, amusement parks and leisure facilities, and seafood processors.

Employers value H-2B workers because their legal status in the United States is tied to their employment and because they often have extended families in their home countries depending on their wages, making them loyal and motivated workers. Racial discrimination may also induce U.S. employers to petition for H-2B workers rather than employ black American workers.

Hourly compensation for U.S. workers has stagnated since the H-2B program began to expand in 2002, and economists have found no evidence of a labor shortage in the occupational groups that constitute the bulk of H-2B employment.

H-2B employers are required to advertise job vacancies prior to opening them up to H-2B guestworkers, but the ads more frequently resemble legal notices than real enticements and are often specifically designed to attract as little attention as possible.

In sum, what Eury and daughter have been indicted and face serious jail time for, albeit illegal, sounds pretty much like business as usual in the world of H-2Bs.  Another Seminara “Key Point” nails it home:

Many of the businesses filing H-2B petitions for foreign workers are “body shops” that have no actual “seasonal or temporary” need for labor. Body shops can petition for large numbers of workers and then essentially sell them off to companies that either could not get their own H-2B workers or did not know how to do so. Given the fact that H-2B has an annual numerical cap, critics of body shops argue that they “hoard” workers and then drive up the price for everyone else.

Even worse, as we have noted, they could cause some big companies that had been counting on H-2B workers to be frozen out completely because the quota was reached prematurely because of the fraudulent techniques of the “body shops.”

So what big companies might Stan Eury have run afoul of?  At the top of the list of the major H-2B users in Seminara’s Table 3 is the national landscaping company, The Brickman Group.  Brickman also heads up the list of H-2B users who contribute to Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, as we see in Table 5.  Mikulski, like Brickman, is a big advocate of the H-2B program.  With friends like the “liberal” Democrat, Mikulski, American labor hardly needs enemies.

Here is a verbatim online complaint by one of Brickman’s competitors.  I’m leaving out the “sics.”

“Just wanted to share my wonderful day. I found out today that the brickman group came in and took $185,000.00 of our commercial maintenance contracts this week. Some how they promised 3 of Buckinghams apartment complexes like 14grand brickman_logoworth of spring flowers and about 10k worth of mulch for free and cut throat prices on snow removal. Idk how they do this but i hope it {expletive}ing runs tem inthe ground. I hope people quit buying their stock. And I hope every dam one of their horror stories ive heard from their customers is true and that they do the same with buckingham.

So were about a month away from the mowing season and we went from 6 days of mowing with 5 guys on the crew down to about 2 days. And we just bought 2 new mowers. Spent all day on the phone and drove all over gods creation trying to get some contracts signed and everybody is already {expletive}ing signed. “

Seminara’s entire article is well worth reading for anyone who may have bought the notion that we really need this H-2B guest worker program to bring in people for jobs that Americans won’t do.  Seminara also addresses the alien smuggling angle in his section “Guestworker or Intending Immigrant?”  The key passage—much understated—is this one: “Sadly, we have no way of quantifying how significant the H-2B overstay problem is because DHS still has no reliable entry/exit tracking system. Anecdotal evidence, however, indicates that the H-2B overstay problem is significant…”

Justice, or Muscle?

We are reminded by the following account from a contact who used to be in the landscaping business in the Washington, DC, area, that the federal government may have a lot of rules and regulations, but what’s on paper and the reality of the situation might well be very different things:

When I started my landscape maintenance company in the early 1980s I also had considered janitorial service too.  Being near Washington and always hearing about government contracts I decided to try to secure a maintenance contract with the federal government.

There was a lot of information on how to do business with the government and agencies sent me packets of information on how to proceed.  I read all the instructions and eventually attended a pre-bid conference for a job.  There were about a dozen other contractors present and everyone was given a packet with instructions.

Everything that was expected was listed in detail.  Every service to be provided was written like a military manual with how many GuestworkersMaintimes per day, week, or month, the service was to be done.   One thing I never encounter working in the private sector was that the hourly wages of workers was established by the government.  They called it “the prevailing wage” for the Washington area.  And they told us what it was.  I do not remember the exact numbers but the minimum wage may have been $5.75 and the bid packet stated we must pay a “prevailing wage” that may have been set at $9.75.

It made it easy to figure out the bid price because one only had to do the math.  Everything was spelled out, how many hours and how many people and what was to be done.  They left one line blank for your profit, but suggested you add in 10-20%.

One thing in the bid packet I found disturbing.  There was a paragraph that stated if for any reason my company was unable to perform the agreement or if my company service was cancelled by the government for failure to perform the service I agreed that the government could secure another contractor to complete the job AND I WOULD HAVE TO PAY THAT CONTRACTOR for their service.

When I read that I thought I’d better bid enough to do this job or I could be in trouble.

When the day came to open the bids I was surprised at how low the winning bid was since I had studied the numbers.   I could not understand how the hours and workers and prevailing wages mandated by the contract could be paid with such a low bid.

I asked the government official after the meeting how this low bid could pay the wages mandated.  He glared at me and asked if I was accusing someone of illegal activity, with a how-dare-you attitude.  He added that if I knew of anyone underpaying workers I should take my case to the Department of Labor.

I left for the private sector and never tried for another government contract.

The Justice Department is supposed to enforce the laws that govern the H-2B program, but as we have seen, they haven’t been enforcing them all that vigorously up to now.  One really has to wonder if Stan Eury might have stepped on the toes of someone like that outrageously low bidder for the big federal janitorial contract.

Legal H-2B Use Still Harms U.S. Workers and Employers


Returning to the Seminara article, we are not surprised to learn that large companies are much more likely to avail themselves of H-2B workers than small companies are.  The companies that compete with them using American labor are put at a disadvantage in more ways than we might have imagined.  We see from Table 3 that in FY 2008 Brickman’s wage for H-2B landscapers ranged from $6.65 to $9.68 an hour.  We can easily understand that competing with a company with such low labor costs would be quite difficult, but there’s more to it than that.  Here, once again, are the words of the former owner of a small landscape company who competed with Brickman in Maryland:

One disadvantage I had as an American employer of legal American workers was in the area of unemployment insurance.  The seasonal business employed people for 10 months and in the winter I only retained a few employees for snow removal and paid them even if it did not snow.  The laid off employees drew unemployment insurance until they returned to work.   When claims for unemployment are made the unemployment tax rate on the employer rises and the bottom line is, over time, the employer pays for the unemployment compensation drawn by his employees.

PrintAnd if you have good employees, as I did, you want to retain them and naturally they want an increase in pay every year, and even small increases add up over time. But I cared about my employees and wanted to treat them fairly for their hard work and loyalty to me.

Employers who are not concerned about people, perhaps some large corporations, simply discard people every year and continually hire new people at the lowest possible wage.  And if those workers come across the border and agree to return across the border they are not going to be drawing any unemployment so the unemployment tax always remains at the legal minimum for those companies.

The unemployment tax is a percentage on the wages paid.  So in my case I got hit hard as I paid my employees more and the unemployment tax rate was high.

There are two unemployment taxes on wages, federal unemployment tax and the state unemployment tax.  The state tax is the most punishing.  Last year the MD tax ranged from 2.2 % to 13.5 % of the first $8,500 an employee earns.  I would have been in the 13.5% bracket on the first $8,500 I paid my employees.  For ten employees that would be $11,475 or 13.5% of $85,000.  And there is the federal tax on top of that.

I think most people think unemployment is paid by the government.  It is, sort of, but the government gets all that money from the employers.  It is a burden on businesses making it harder to survive, especially when unemployment is high.  In times of high unemployment I remember Maryland adding a temporary surtax on top of the normal tax when the state funds got low.

And the big companies have the resources to subsidize the politicians to keep the deck stacked in their favor.

Playing to Type?

However harmful his activities might have been to American small businesses and to American workers, Stan Eury would never have been looking at jail time had the government continued to agree that he was playing by the rules. But he has been on the wrong side of the law before.  He first became familiar with the possibilities in agricultural labor contracting working for North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission as a state employee matching farm workers with farm employers.  At the same time he saw the possibilities in a lucrative form of illicit agriculture, marijuana growing.  He and an ESC co-worker were caught watering his plot.  Pleading no contest, he was sentenced only to 200 hours of community service.  The ESC also fired him, probably more for the fact that he was doing the watering on company time than anything else, and he then went full time into labor contracting.

Whatever or whoever is behind this current indictment, a no contest plea this time is hardly likely to result in such a light tap on the wrist.

David Martin

February 27, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

A Lawyer’s Case for Harry Hopkins

A Lawyer’s Case for Harry Hopkins

by DC Dave

In the small world that is Washington, DC, my path has crossed, as it were, that of the venerable Steptoe and Johnson lawyer, David L. Roll, once again.  The first time, he had co-written a biography of Louis Johnson, the thoroughly unqualified man whom President Harry Truman appointed to replace James Forrestal as Secretary of Defense.  In that book he repeated the semi-official story of Forrestal having committed suicide after reading and transcribing some depressing lines from an ancient Greek poem.  Since I have completely debunked that tale, I felt an obligation to call him to account, which I did in two public appearances of his, one letter, and one lunch meeting.  We shall have more to say about that later in this essay.

Now he has written another biography of an important public figure of the mid-20th century whom I have also written about, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s virtual assistant president, Harry Hopkins.  The book is entitled The Hopkins Touch: Harry Hopkins and the Forging of the Alliance to Defeat HitlerIn this instance, I dare say that he knows more about the subject than I do, but the main problem, as I see it, is that in pursuit of his conventional-wisdom agenda it is most unlikely that he would tell us everything that he knows.  After all, thanks to my previous efforts he now knows many things about the death of Forrestal that we can be quite certain will never appear in writing in association with his name.  My means of calling him to account this time was a review on entitled “A Very Well-Written Lawyer’s Case for Harry Hopkins,” a slightly revised version of which follows:

When I read David Roll’s earlier book, Louis Johnson and the Arming of America: The Roosevelt and Truman Years, that he co-wrote with an academic historian, I assumed that he was the lesser contributor whose primary interest in the project arose from the fact that Johnson was one of the founding partners of the law firm for which Roll works in Washington, DC. Now, having read this soaring account of the contribution of Harry Hopkins to the allied effort in World War II, I believe that his co-author might have been holding him down a bit. Roll writes engagingly and he has exhibited some first class scholarship. I can’t think of a better way to appreciate the tugging and pulling that went on among the allies than by following the work of Hopkins as Roll has done. One comes away from the book wondering why Hopkins is not better known and more celebrated than he is.

Roll’s strength, however, is also his weakness. If Hopkins were his client, I’d say that Roll has done a pretty darned good job for him, but biography should be more than a brief for the accused. Nowhere is Roll’s partisan work in better evidence than in his defense against the charge that Hopkins was actually a spy for the Soviet Union. “Notebooks from KGB archives were published in 2009 that flatly disprove widely published allegations that Hopkins was a Soviet agent,” he writes in his prologue. At that point he has no reference, but he does when he elaborates upon the question later in the book. It turns out that the revelations to which he refers tend to disprove only one piece of evidence that Hopkins was a paid Soviet agent, that is, that he was “source 19″ who supplied Stalin with vital information from a Roosevelt-Churchill meeting. Agent 19, we are now told, was the known Soviet agent Laurence Duggan, a high level State Department official. Roll neglects to tell us that Whittaker Chambers had informed FDR through his top aide for security, Adolf Berle, that Duggan was a spy back in 1939. Similarly, when Roll informs us that Hopkins’s aide for Lend-Lease, Lauchlin Currie, passed a top secret document to Stalin, he fails once again to tell us that Currie was among those fingered in 1939 by the spy-ring-defector Chambers.

This withheld information may reflect worse upon Hopkins’ boss, FDR, than it does upon him, but the revelations from KGB documents made in 2009 also do nothing to refute the charge publicized in the recent book by Diana West, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, that Hopkins informed the Soviet embassy that one of its key agents was being bugged by the FBI. Roll simply ignores that bit of evidence, even though it has been around since at least 1999 when it was revealed by Victor Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew in The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.

Roll is at his table-pounding worst in his slander of Major George Racey Jordan, who charged in his book, From Major Jordan’s Diaries, that Hopkins provided some of the wherewithal for the Soviet Union to manufacture their first nuclear weapon under the guise of Lend-Lease assistance. Roll’s conclusion, “that Jordan either lied for publicity and profit or was delusional,” as anyone who bothers to read Jordan’s book, now available online in its entirety, is completely untenable. One can also see how untenable it is by reading Congressional testimony available on the web site of Andrew Bostom.

Once again, The Hopkins Touch is well worth reading and has more than earned the favorable blurbs one finds on the dust cover from the likes of Douglas Brinkley, Chris Matthews, Evan Thomas, James Schlesinger, and Bud McFarlane, but it is not “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” To get a little closer to that worthy goal one should at least dip a toe or two into the case against Harry Hopkins. You can start doing that by reading “When Harry Met Ivan,” “The Treachery of Harry Hopkins,” “Harry Hopkins Hosted Soviet Spy Cell,” and, most recently, “Harry Hopkins and FDR’s Commissars.”

Not only is Roll’s work endorsed by what I would call a virtual rogues’ gallery of establishment media and government figures but in his acknowledgments at the end of the book he expresses special appreciation to his Georgetown neighbor, Joe Goulden, who encouraged him in his work and lent him books that he used for source material.  Perhaps this is an entirely innocent relationship—after all, I borrowed books from the late Scott Runkle—but Goulden is quite a dubious character as revealed in part by my articles “Spook Journalist Goulden” and “Rotten Goulden/Corn.”

The David Roll Stonewall on James Forrestal

Concerning the Forrestal death, I sent the following letter to Roll on November 1, 2005:

As you will recall, during the question and answer period following your October 18 [2005] Eisenhower Institute presentation on your new book, Louis Johnson and the Arming of America, co-written with Keith McFarland, I noted that new research had shown that an observation of yours on page 153 is entirely incorrect.  The passage, which follows, was written to support the popular conclusion, which your book endorses, that Johnson’s predecessor as Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, had committed suicide:

But everyone knew [Forrestal] was deeply disturbed.  Moments before his death, he was copying Sophocles’ poem “The Chorus from Ajax,” in which Ajax, forlorn and “worn by the waste of time, contemplates suicide.”

With respect to the first sentence, I noted that those who worked most closely with Forrestal certainly did not “know” that he was “deeply disturbed.”  Most notable among them was his top assistant, Marx Leva.  This comes from the oral history interview of Leva by Stephen Hess found on the web site of the Truman Library:

HESS: What do you recall about the unfortunate mental breakdown that overtook Mr. Forrestal?

LEVA: Well, I may have been in the position of not being able to see the forest for the trees because I was seeing him six, eight, ten, twelve times a day and both in and out of the office. A lot of his friends have said since his death, “Oh, we saw it coming,” and, “We knew this and we knew that.” The only thing that I knew was that he was terribly tired, terribly overworked, spending frequently literally sixteen hours and eighteen hours a day trying to administer an impossible mechanism, worrying about the fact that a lot of it was of his own creation. I knew that he was tired, I begged him to take time off. I’m sure that others begged him to take time off.

In your defense, you said that you had relied completely upon Driven Patriot, the Life and Times of James Forrestal, by Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley for information concerning Forrestal’s death.  However, Leva’s observations are reinforced by this quote from page 426 of their book:

Given the extent and pace of his decline, it is astonishing that colleagues at the Pentagon, including members of his inner staff, failed to recognize it. In retrospect they attribute their failure to Forrestal’s formidable self-control, his brusque, impersonal method of dealing with staff, and the simple fact that they saw him too frequently to note much change in his condition or demeanor.

Though Hoopes and Brinkley do not support your claim concerning what everyone knew about Forrestal, they are clearly the source for the account of Forrestal transcribing a specific morbid poem “moments before his death.”  They are proved to be wrong on this point, however, by recently uncovered evidence.  Their sole source for the claim that Forrestal was actually seen copying the poem shortly before he plunged from a 16th floor window was Arnold Rogow, in his book, James Forrestal, a Study of Personality, Politics, and Policy.  Rogow, though, has no source at all, and it is no wonder, because it is now clear that he made the story up.  The naval corpsman who was in charge of Forrestal’s security and who was the witness, according to Rogow, of the transcribing incident, testified that Forrestal did no reading while he was on duty and that the last time he looked in, Forrestal was apparently sleeping in the darkened room.  That is precisely the time, 1:45 a.m., that Rogow says that the corpsman saw Forrestal busy copying the poem.

The following passage comes from testimony of Apprentice Robert Wayne Harrison, who came on duty at 11:45 p.m. the night of Forrestal’s death.  It has only been available since its release through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2004:

Q.  At what time did you last see Mister Forrestal?

A.  It was one forty-five, sir.

Q. Where was he then?

A. He was in his bed, apparently sleeping.

Q.  Where were you at that time?

A.  I was in the room when I saw him.

And this comes a little later in Apprentice Harrison’s testimony:

Q.  Did Mister Forrestal appear cheerful or depressed in the time that you observed him?

A.  He appeared neither, sir.

Q.  Did Mister Forrestal do any reading?

A.  Not while I was on watch, sir.

It goes without saying that if he did no reading, he did no copying from any books.  So much for the statement as to what Forrestal was doing “moments before his death.”

Actually, what we now know amounts to far more than a mere quibble over the timing of Forrestal’s actions.  On October 18, 2005, I gave you a copy of the handwritten transcription that appears among the exhibits accompanying the official investigation, along with a couple of samples of Forrestal’s handwriting that I obtained separately from the Truman Library.  These can be found at  From a mere glance one can easily see that someone other than Forrestal copied the lines of the poem.

Nevertheless, with this evidence in hand, at a presentation at the Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington, DC, on October 29 you made the statement that internecine squabbling within the newly-created Defense Department contributed to Forrestal’s demise and ultimate “suicide.”  Afterward, you will recall, I told you that you could not possibly still be maintaining that Forrestal committed suicide if you had examined the evidence that I had given you more than a week before.  You replied that you had not yet looked at the evidence.

I’m sure that your clients would expect you to be a good deal better prepared to defend them than you were to defend what you have written in your book and repeated in your book-promoting presentation.  At the very least, I should think you would have exhibited just a little bit of natural, human curiosity.  Perhaps it is that old saying about feline curiosity that has prevented you from wanting to know the truth, even when you are on record with a demonstrably untrue statement.

Fortunately, your co-author, Keith McFarland, whom you seem to have protected from the evidence I gave you, participated with you in that Politics and Prose presentation.  He told me that he was “open-minded” and that he has told his students in the past that history writing is an ongoing process and that we should always be prepared to revise our views as we learn more.  Let us hope that he is as good as his word in this case and that you and he will soon take steps to correct your error. (To my knowledge he was not as good as his word and has done nothing. ed.)

Might I remind you that James Forrestal was the leading government official warning against pursuit of the foreign policy that has us in our current mess in the Middle East?  I realize that, to many, that is ample reason why the news that he did not commit suicide, but was actually assassinated, should be suppressed.  But to anyone interested in truth and justice and concerned about the fate of this country and the world, it is even greater reason why this unpleasant news should be spread widely and quickly.  Anyone who, at this late date, has perpetuated the false story of Forrestal’s suicide has a special obligation to set the record straight.

He actually responded to my letter, and requested that we meet for lunch.  Although the lunch meeting did not take place until several weeks had passed, Mr. Roll appeared to know no more about the case than he had shown when I talked to him at the Politics and Prose bookstore.  He simply used our brief time together to ask me a number of simple questions that are answered in great detail in “Who Killed James Forrestal?”  I tried to give some short, simple responses to his questions, but the best thing I could tell him was to go read what I had written and then ask questions.  He was not at all prepared to challenge anything I had written, and no progress was made toward getting at the truth at the meeting.  I was left wondering why he wanted to meet in the first place.

From that experience I have concluded that it would be fruitless to pursue the letter-writing route in the case of Harry Hopkins, whom Curtis Dall, by the way, in his book FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, considers less a flunky of Roosevelt and more as FDR’s superior.  Dall saw Hopkins as an agent of the far-left triumvirate of Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and Soviet espionage expediter Harry Dexter White, who were themselves the agents of the one-world wirepullers connected to the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

David Martin

February 20, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?


Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?

by DC Dave



For a quarter of a century the “largest farm labor contractor in the country,” described by an internal state memo in North Carolina as the impresario of “the largest alien smuggling ring in our nation’s history” according to Mother Jones magazine, has operated with impunity. He has done it right out in the open with state and federal government approval.   His scheme has been successful during the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the second Bush administration, and during Barack Obama’s entire first term.  Now, after an extended investigation of its own, Obama’s Department of Justice has, at long last, come down on him like a ton of bricks.

We are talking about Craig Stanford “Stan” Eury, Jr. of the little town of Vass, NC.  On Friday, January 31 a federal grand jury in Greensboro, NC, handed down a 41-count indictment, running to 57 pages, for a variety of dodges in which he and his daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Farrell, allegedly illegally stockpiled mainly Mexican workers for assignment to U.S. employers of their choice, regardless of who they were legally committed to work for.

leadimageWhat the Justice Department has charged him with primarily is gaming the H-2B program, the federal arrangement for bringing in low-skilled non-agricultural workers to work in seasonal or otherwise temporary labor for less than a year.  The idea behind it—that is to say the public rationale—is that foreign workers are brought in with special temporary visas for jobs that American citizens are not available to perform.  Unlike its H-2A counterpart for agricultural workers, which has no cap, the H-2B program is capped at 66,000 per federal fiscal year.

The indictment is for multiple instances of fraud in the operation of the company International Labor Management Corporation (ILMC), which Eury founded in 1994 and turned over to Farrell in 2008.  ILMC is engaged primarily in importing workers with H-2B visas.  The indictment does not involve the much larger and older North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA), a non-profit organization run by Eury and whose operation has garnered most of the “alien smuggling” allegations through the years.  Many of the counts leveled in the indictment relate to the unique nature of H-2B, with its cap, while the general nature of the alleged fraud is recognizable to those who have observed Eury’s dealings in the agricultural field through the years.

The fact that H-2B fraud and ILMC are targeted and not the far larger H-2A and NCGA may be regarded as tactical and not a sign that Obama’s Justice Department is merely aiming at the capillaries and not the jugular with its indictment.  Blame is spread among all the members of the non-profit NCGA, of which, on paper, Eury is simply an employee.  The target is clear in the case of ILMC.  It’s just Eury and his daughter.


The Indictment

In examining the indictment, we see the Eury M.O. at work, whether it be for H-2A or H-2B workers.  On page 11, paragraph 25, it is alleged that Eury and Farrell “falsely petitioned for and obtained extra H-2B Visas above and beyond the actual needs of their client employers for the purpose of creating pools of extra Visas.”  “It was a further part of the conspiracy,” we find on page 12, paragraph 26, “that CRAIG STANFORD EURY, JR., and SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL, through ILMC, falsely and fraudulently represented to the Department of Labor and USCIS that their client employers had jobs for H-2B workers in greater numbers than actually needed by the client employer. “

The indictment is replete with details of how the fraud was carried out, but speaking of the Eury M.O., let us take note at this point of correspondence I have received from a longtime farm labor coordinator for North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission (NCESC) one of those State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) whose thankless job it is to assist American workers to find agricultural employment and farmers to find workers:

  1. NCGA would always submit orders for the capacity of the farmer’s camp.  Many former cucumber growers would have camps with 20-40 person capacity.  The farmer would actually be requesting less than half the camp capacity, primarily for the highly mechanized tobacco crop.
  2. We would occasionally encounter farmers who said they had not ordered any workers but were on orders for workers.  They had joined the NCGA as insurance in case their usual migrant workers weren’t available.
  3. We would see out of season orders such as tree planters in July.  Tree planting is a cold weather activity.
  4. We would occasionally see orders that appeared to be totally made up in that the name on the order was not that of a real employer or the address did not exist.  When we reported this to the boss in Raleigh the order was quietly deleted with no explanation except that it was a typo.
  5. Farmers would tell [U.S. citizen] workers whom we referred that they didn’t need them even though they had signed an assurance that they would give preference to domestic over alien workers.
  6. NCGA would initiate intimidation tactics against employment interviewers who dared refer workers.  Interviewers who complained about these tactics were either given no support or punished by their employment service bosses.  This served to effectively eliminate or severely depress referrals.
  7. Dates on the orders would routinely run at least a month beyond the available work.  This caused most workers to leave early letting NCGA pocket the return to Mexico transportation reimbursement that would have otherwise gone to the workers.
  8. Our wage surveys would frequently reveal that the workers were getting less that the stated wage on the order.

Concerning #7, one should definitely not read into “leave early” the notion that workers left to go back to Mexico.  Most of them don’t and seasonal-workerssoon join the ever-growing ranks of the illegal or “undocumented,” if you will.  That’s what “legal” alien smuggling is all about.

Concerning #1, the main restraint on the H-2A “legal” alien smuggling operation is that farmers must provide housing for their foreign temporary workers.  Back in 1998 the U.S. Congress proposed to liberalize the H-2A program by, among other things, eliminating the housing requirement.  I wrote a series of six articles—the first was September 28; the last was October 18—opposing the legislation.  They are in my Archive 2, starting with “Giant Trampling Sound.”  Those articles supply a litany of ills of the H-2A program, some of which we discuss below, but first let us look a bit more at this big federal indictment.

One of my SWA contacts tells me that paragraph 45 on page 19, almost more than the others, belongs under the “suspicions confirmed” category.  He recalls numerous incidents in which job seekers he had sent to various farms returned with the same rejection story, as though the farmers had been reading from the same script.  It looks like they were, and it was written by Eury:

It was a further part of the conspiracy that CRAIG STANFORD EURY, JR., SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL and ILMC employees acting at their direction instructed client employers how to conduct interviews for United States citizen workers in such a manner as to suppress the hiring of United States citizen workers, thereby allowing ILMC to profit from filling the jobs with H-2B workers while depriving United States citizen workers of the opportunity to secure those jobs.

Some of the things that the father and daughter are charged with are unique to H-2B with its national fiscal-year cap.  The federal fiscal year begins on October 1.  Even in the non-farm arena, most temporary increases in employment in and around North Carolina occur in the summer, associated with summer vacations.  By the time ILMC could get the workers that they needed for warm weather work, the national quota could be filled.  But the Eury team didn’t achieve its level of preeminence in the visa brokerage business without being creative and resourceful.  Consider paragraphs 57 and 58 on pages 23 and 24:

Sometime in either June or July 2008, SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL met with an ILMC client whose initials are S.P. to discuss the creation of “winter” companies to allow S.P. and ILMC to bring alien workers into the United States prior to the operation of the cap.  To achieve this goal, S.P. created a “winter” company, Winterscapes, LLC.

Sometime in either June or July 2008, S.P. contacted SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL to determine how many H-2B Visas he could request for Winterscapes, LLC, for the purpose of entering alien workers into the United States prior to the operation of the cap.  SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL instructed S.P. that he could request as many workers as he wanted, as Winterscapes, LLC, was a start-up company.  SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL did not inform S.P. that he could only legally petition for alien workers that were actually needed for specific positions at Winterscapes, LLC, and which could not be filled with American workers.  Based on SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL’s instructions, S.P. requested that ILMC petition for 150 snowmakers despite the fact that S.P. knew that jobs in North Carolina only existed for approximately twenty-five snowmakers.

Stan Eury’s pride and joy achieved perhaps her highest level of creativity with a particularly ambitious job request detailed in paragraph 70, which begins at the bottom of page 29:

On or about July 8, 2008, SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL filed, or caused the filing of by employees of ILMC, a Form I-129, petition number EAC-09-201-51107, which petition falsely stated that Winterscapes, LLC, had jobs for 246 alien workers as janitors, such petition bearing the false signature and certification of an officer of Winterscapes, LLC, whose initials are S.P.  SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL knew at the time of the filing of the above petition that the majority of the “janitors” would be used to work at other jobs once they entered the United States under H-2B Visas obtained for Winterscapes, LLC.


A Perfect Storm in Tar Heel Land

How in the world did she think she could get by with such an obviously phony visa request?  The answer must be that she and her dad had been permitted to get by with similar ruses for years.  Here’s how my NCESC contact describes the situation:

The unique set of circumstances here in North Carolina that allowed Eury’s malignant enterprises to metastasize could hardly have been duplicated elsewhere.  The usual checks and balances, such as they were, were almost totally absent.  For starters, the head of farm worker legal services was one mouse of a woman named Mary Lee Hall.  Hall makes [UNC Chancellor] Carol Folt look like Joan of Arc. The two successive heads of USDOL’s farm work investigative team here in NC were hard right-wingers who saw every dispute between employers and workers in classic liberal vs. conservative terms.  They gave Eury all manner of cover.  Pretty much everyone in my agency except for me and the guy in Greenville performed their jobs as if they were on Eury’s payroll.  Several ended up actually ON his payroll including one of my counterparts.  Lastly, you had the spectacularly ineffective, 40-year veteran, state farm worker advocate who had the courage of the cowardly lion of Wizard of Oz fame.  When he did attempt his meager efforts at whistle blowing, he was inarticulate and had trouble focusing on the central issues.  He essentially played briar patch to Eury’s rabbit.  While Eury did indeed branch out into other states, his criminal enterprises never thrived elsewhere like they did here in NC.

280318_f260As state governments go North Carolina perhaps has a somewhat better reputation than most when it come to corruption, or lack of same, but you will have to excuse me for noticing from my DC-area vantage point a somewhat familiar aroma.  In this case it appears to be corruption grounded in a strong harmony of interests between Eury and powerful agribusinesses.  As another of my SWA contacts pithily put it, “Many growers only feel that they have adequate labor when three men are available for one job.” What Eury has been up to all these years, he went on, is only a part of  “a concerted and successful effort to underpay all farm workers.”  The essential problem, he told me, is that farm workers are simply paid much too little for the strenuous work that they do, and there are powerful people who want to keep it that way.

More that I have learned about the inner workings of the NCESC further fleshes this portrait of powerful influence at work. Eury brought with him, I am told, one of U.S. Senator Jesse Helms’s aides to one of his earliest meetings with their high level officials.  They apparently got the message, because I am also told that these officials skipped levels in the command chain, asking underlings to report to them any criticism of Eury’s NCGA by their superiors or colleagues, that is to say, to rat them out.  To be a friend of the NCGA at the NCESC was a good career move; to be critical was not.  At the same time, smaller visa brokers to the NCGA who attempted some of the same sorts of stunts we see described in the indictment were invariably found out in short order and shut down.

The Larger Corruption

The situation in North Carolina gives us only a small part of the big picture.  A glimpse at that bigger picture can be seen in a quote from a USA Today article that is generally favorable to the H-2A program:

Allegations of recruiting irregularities have been rampant in Mexico, the main provider of H2A workers. Many pay recruiters for the right to secure the coveted visas — illegal under both U.S. and Mexican law — and take out large loans to pay them, according to a survey released last month by the Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (CDM).

Ten percent said they paid fees for jobs that never materialized. Fifty-eight percent said they paid fees that averaged $590 to recruiters, and 47% took out loans, often to the recruiters themselves at interest rates sometimes topping 70%.

One must really wonder why getting a visa to do what has been described by many a virtual slave labor for a few months could be so coveted farmworkersthat one would pay heavily for the privilege.  The answer is that the visa is, essentially, a get-into-the-USA-free (except for the mordida) card.  The incredible dirty secret of the H-2A/H-2B program is that there is no mechanism to see to it that the visa holder goes back to Mexico when his temporary work is done.  The natural result is that most of them, beyond any serious doubt, don’t go back.

The guest worker program has been sold to us as the legal alternative to hiring illegal aliens for temporary work that Americans are unwilling or unable to do.  But the way things are set up, today’s legal guest worker is simply tomorrow’s illegal immigrant.  While so much of the illegal immigration debate that we see in the press focuses upon people sneaking across the border, massive future-illegal residence in the United States is being facilitated by the federal government itself, and for a quarter of a century Stan Eury has been at the heart of the facilitation process.

One of my SWA contacts was interviewed some years ago by the team of federal investigators who put together the case that eventually became the indictment that came down on the Eurys last week.  One member of that team told him that he had been surprised to learn that a substantial number of the crimes they were seeing committed in North Carolina were committed by people who had originally come into the country on H-2A visas.

Most of the negative things we hear about the guest worker program concerns the mistreatment of the workers by Simon-Legree-like employers.  Matters came to something of a head a decade ago and the Mexican government announced that it would investigate:

“We are pleased that the government of Mexico concluded that the plight of migrant farmworkers in North Carolina deserves attention,” said Bruce Goldstein, co-executive director of the Farmworker Justice Fund. “The treatment of farmworkers under the H-2A guest worker program is a travesty and must be addressed.”

Stan Eury, executive director of the N.C. Growers Association, which recruited about 9,000 farmworkers this year and brought them to North Carolina under temporary H-2A agricultural worker visas, scoffed at the complaints.

“We have actually a very good record with farmworkers and think we do a very good job,” said Eury, who had not seen the advocacy groups’ petition.

My NCESC contact took a jaundiced view of the whole thing and predicted that nothing would come of it.  It turns out that he was right:

Having the Mexican government investigate abuse of Mexican workers here in NC is akin to having Dick Cheney investigate the events of 9/11.  After this “investigation” was conducted, Eury eventually partnered with a Mexican labor union, FLOC, whose primary contribution was to exact a 2% cut from the workers’ wages in return for sweeping their complaints under the rug and thus giving Eury even another layer of cover.  The Mexican government should grant him honorary citizenship because he fits in perfectly with that culture.

The abuses of workers under H-2A/H-2B are real enough, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes them in quite a bit of detail in its generally excellent report, “Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States.” The SPLC informs us in that report that foreign workers have been known to pay from $5,000 to $10,000 each for those coveted visas, far above the comparative pittance of $590 reported by USA Today, and that NCGA has a blacklist of workers who are regarded as agitators and troublemakers.  The 1997 “ineligible to rehire list,” it says, “consisted of more than 1,000 names of undesirable former guestworkers.”

The problem here is that this is the fake-left SPLC, probably best noted for describing every organization in the country that doesn’t bow before an all-powerful state as a “hate group.” Most any tea party Republican type who sees that the SPLC is against Stan Eury and his operation is likely to be favorably disposed toward him. *  The SPLC, for its part, plays along with this left vs. right game by ignoring completely the contribution that Eury has made in increasing the percentage of the Spanish-speaking population of the United States.  But we wouldn’t want to see the left and the right on common ground with American workers against the designs of our globalist masters, would we?


The Great Suppression of 2014

And that brings us to the next level of corruption.  There is another interesting quote in that Los Angeles Times article besides the one with which we began this report:

“I have long seen this as a win, win, win,” said Eury, tapping long fingers on a massive, carved Mexican table in his office, a fountain burbling in the background and his latest crop of workers sweltering outside.

“It’s a win for the growers because they get a reliable work force, a win for the workers because they get good jobs and a win for the American public because it helps cure our illegal alien problem.”

tentacles-of-powerWe have seen that the third assertion is precisely the opposite from the truth and the second would only have some truth to it if the word “good” were removed from the front of “jobs” and the modifier “foreign” were placed in front of “workers.”  The first assertion comes closest to the truth, but it would be closer still if “most unscrupulous” were to be placed in front of “growers” and if “docile and controllable” were substituted for “reliable.”  The most important and powerful group is missing from Eury’s “winner” list, however.  That is the group that seems to be hell bent to Balkanize and fractionalize the nation.  They are the ones who have never seen an immigration liberalization bill that they did not support and who never seem to tire of celebrating the nation’s increasing “diversity.”  Anyone who follows our nation’s mainstream news media knows that they, in their entirety, are the national megaphone for that Balkanizing group. (See also “Associated Press Pushes for Statehood for Puerto Rico, particularly the concluding two poems.)

When the federal government goes after someone with such powerful allies as the agribusiness giants and whoever controls the news media, one must wonder what in the world is going on.  Has Obama really “gone Bulworth” on this issue?  Does he even know what’s going on?  Has Attorney General Eric Holder even told him?   Is Holder the one who’s gone Bulworth? Or have United States Attorney Ripley Rand and his assistant Frank J. Chut, Jr., gone rogue?

Perhaps it is an instance where the “permanent government,” the bureaucracy, has decided simply to do the right thing for once.  If that is the case, one can definitely not say the same thing for our appalling news media.

The investigation that lies behind the charges goes all the way back at least to the last months of the George W. Bush administration.  It was then that representatives of the Justice Department, the inspector general’s office of the Labor Department’s Education and Training Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) interviewed my contact in the NCESC.

Not surprisingly, Stan Eury has consistently received much better press than he has ever deserved, particularly from the most influential newspaper in North Carolina, the generally “liberal” Raleigh News and Observer.  What do they have to say now that the Justice Department has lowered the boom on Eury?  Well, here is where things get very interesting, indeed.  They have had absolutely nothing to say!  As of today, they haven’t even reported the major news of the indictment!  And it gets worse than that, much worse.  All the other newspapers in the state were as silent as the News and Observer for more than a week—as indicated by varied and repeated Internet searches—until, exactly one week after the indictment, the Justice Department issued a press release.   Then The Pilot of Moore County where Vass is located and the Fayetteville Observer in the city nearest to Vass had short news items based upon the press release.  Apparently, Fayetteville is still the only major city in the state where the indictment has been reported in a newspaper.  The blackout even apparently includes Greensboro where the indictment was issued.

I learned of the indictment from the only mainstream news organ in the state to put out the news before the press release was issued.  That, surprisingly, is the “conservative” television station WRAL, where Jesse Helms first rose to prominence as a news commentator.  WRAL broke the silence four days after the day of the indictment with a midday news report.  Simultaneously, they put the report on their web site along with the entire official indictment in pdf format.  It was an open invitation for other news organs to follow suit, but none did.

Nationally, of course, the news blackout among the mainstream media has been complete.  The only alternative site other than those based in Focus-On-People-Line-Up-300x248North Carolina that has reported the indictment—which they picked up from WRAL—is Before It’s News.  That site has carried some of my articles, too, which gives you an idea of how far outside the mainstream it is.

From this writer’s experience when the nation’s press ignores something manifestly important it’s more than important, it’s HUGE.  Three examples come readily to mind: the release of the official investigation of the death of Defense Secretary James Forrestal 55 years after the fact; the inclusion upon judges’ order of the letter of the dissenting witness, Patrick Knowlton, with the report by Kenneth Starr on the death of Vincent Foster; and the attempt on the life of President Harry Truman by the Jewish Stern Gang.

In those instances, though, all the power was on one side, that of the news suppressers against truth and justice.  Here what would appear we have shaping up is something of a clash of the titans, and wonder of wonders, whether he knows it or not yet, President Obama is actually on the right side.  His underlings on the front line, Ripley Rand and Frank Chut are up against a formidable foe, and we’re not just talking about Stan Eury.  What the opponents are apparently hoping for is that without the kind of public pressure that publicity would bring, they can string out the case in court until it reaches the likes of a John Bates or a Brett Kavanaugh, who demonstrated their qualifications for federal judgeships by doing yeoman work for Kenneth Starr’s cover-up team in the Foster case.  You, dear reader, can help thwart their efforts by sharing this article with everyone you know.


* The SPLC, it should be noted, calls professor Kevin MacDonald, who sees strong Jewish influence behind the increasingly liberal immigration policy of the United States, “the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic.”


David Martin


February 14, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Jesus Christ Is My Nigga

h/t Snippits and Snappits

Check out Noor’s collection this week. Funny.

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Kathleen Willey Dissects Hillary Clinton

Kathleen Willey Dissects Hillary Clinton


Here we go again.  An article on the Monday, January 27 Washington Post carried this headline:  “With a two-year Iowa head start, Clinton backers off and running.” Once again, with The Post in the lead, the mainstream media are beginning to make it sound inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee and a good bet to be the next president:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not officially running for anything. But here in the first-in-the-nation caucus state that bedeviled her in 2008, Democrats are busy laying the groundwork for what they see as Clinton’s near-certain 2016 presidential campaign.

Over a marathon day of strategy sessions, the Democratic Party’s patchwork coalition was fully represented: labor leaders, elected officials, statewide and local candidates, liberal activists, women, gays, seniors and 20-somethings. State party chairman Scott Brannen was here, too, as were strategists and foot soldiers who helped President Obama’s 2008 Iowa triumph…

The organizing effort demonstrated that, should Clinton run, it will be very difficult for Vice President Biden or another Democrat to mount a credible challenge. Priorities USA Action, the heavyweight liberal super PAC that led attacks against Republican Mitt Romney in 2012, has reoriented itself to fund a media campaign supporting Clinton.

51B79Xo1sOL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_One may be fairly certain that the former Clinton campaign activist and Clinton White House Social Office volunteer Kathleen Willey will not be among the Hillary tub-thumpers.  You may remember her as the woman interviewed on 60 Minutes who said that she was groped by Bill Clinton when, in desperate financial straits, she made a plea to him for a paying job.

It was completely ignored by the same media who keep touting Hillary, but in 2007, back when Hillary-the-next-president was being made to look as inevitable as she is now, Willey finally came out with a book.  It is called Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Hillary is included in the title not just to make it timely during her first run for the presidency.  One gets the distinct impression from reading the book that in spite of the indignity she suffered at Bill’s hands, Willey genuinely regards Hillary as much the worse of the two.

Before we get into the particulars of Willey’s fear and loathing of Hillary, we must note that we can also see from the book that Willey is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Reflecting on page 25 upon her attendance in 1992 at a political function at the Middleburg, VA, estate of Pamela Harriman, Willey, who comes from a family of Northern transplants to Richmond, describes the late world-class courtesan Harriman as, “The epitome of Southern gentility and elegance.”  She apparently doesn’t know that Pamela was English.  On the same page she describes her attendance at a Clinton fund-raiser on the grounds of a fancy home in 51MU4l370XL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_Maryland “overlooking the Severin River.”  You’d think it was named for a pain reliever instead of a river in England.

In spite of her own experience and the abundance of evidence to the contrary, Willey also seems to have bought the official nonsense on the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.  “Though Vince was tall, thin, handsome, and came from the right side of the street,” she writes on page 48, “he didn’t have the tough skin that the Clintons have.  Vince took a lot of political hits and the press really beat up on him.  On July 20, 1993, he went to a park outside of Washington D.C., put a gun in his mouth, and shot himself.”  It’s even more surprising that she should believe that Foster committed suicide while she expresses very strong suspicions that her own husband didn’t.

Though Willey, when it comes to things she has read or heard, might be as gullible and deceived as most of the rest of us, when it comes to her own direct experience what she says has the clear ring of truth.  Her profile of Hillary on pp. 83-84 combines her observations during her days in the White House with what she has gleaned from a number of books.  Here it is in its entirety:

Right outside our door, the rickety elevator took people from the basement to the top floor.  We saw everyone who got out of that old elevator—and we’d hear them.  Some people we heard more than others.

When Hillary got off the elevator on the way to her office, which was next to ours, we all knew what kind of day it was going to be on our floor.  She would emerge with her entourage, cursing up a storm.  And all day long, we heard her raised voice through the wall.  Hillary always seemed to be miserable, unhappy, and angry.  Christopher Andersen, who wrote American Evita, said in an interview, “The staff was not afraid of Bill Clinton, the staff was afraid of Hillary Clinton—they were terrified of her.  She had a tremendous temper.”

She didn’t reserve her tirades for staff.  She made the president plenty miserable, too.  David Gergen wrote, “A chipper president would arrive at the office in the morning, almost whistling as he whipped through papers.  A phone would ring.  It was a call from upstairs at the residence…his mood would darken, his attention wander, and hot words would spew out….” FBI agent Gary Aldrich wrote that he heard Hillary cuss at Bill about a newspaper article.  “Come back here, you asshole!” she yelled at him.  “Where the fuck do you think you’re going?”

That’s the Hillary I saw.  I’ve walked behind her when she was cursing an aide with a very foul mouth.  Then she would see somebody who mattered and instantly pour it on, all sweetness and light.  A doey-eyed expression on her face, she’d act so sincere.  The minute they were gone, she’d turn around and explode again, cussing a blue streak.  Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson wrote in Dereliction of Duty, “While I got used to Hillary’s wrath, her ability to turn it off and on amazed me.”  She was one of the phoniest people I have ever seen.

Hillary treated her Secret service agents like dirt.  These were really good people—disciplined men and women with military backgrounds—who had a solid sense of how things should be done.  But the Clintons hate the military.  Hillary especially made it clear.  Many of those guys were former Marines and some had gone to Vietnam.  She saw this as reason enough to be horrible to them.


She spoke to her Secret Service agents just as she had to the state trooper bodyguards in Arkansas.  Once, when one of her bodyguards greeted her with, “Good morning,” Hillary replied, “Fuck off!  It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day.  I’m not going to talk to you, too.  Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.” As first lady, she maintained this attitude.  On another occasion, she reportedly ordered a Secret service agent to carry her bags, though he was reluctant to do so because “he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.” Hillary’s response to the diligent agent was, “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags.” In yet another incident, the first lady said to the Secret Service detail in charge of protecting her life, “Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me!  Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else!…Just fucking do as I say, okay?  That was our first lady!  With obviously more class than she had, those men endured her with integrity.  But I felt badly for them.

One also has to feel bad for Kathleen Willey, who one might remember was courted by the big Democratic fund-raiser and moneybags Nathan Landow, but now sees herself as “collateral damage of the Clintons” and is pleading for assistance to prevent her house from being foreclosed upon.  Her principles, which one gathers from her book moved her to reject Landow (“… his looks belied him.  He was a bully—very gruff, profane, and rude.”), seemed to have landed her in big financial trouble once again.  The sales of Target must not have gone very well, which is a shame, because the book’s importance looms large once again with 2016 fast approaching.

Hillary, the Enabler

The problem with Hillary, you see, as one gathers from Willey, is not just that Hillary is a harpy and a harridan.  The worst of it is that Hillary as a politician has been effectively sold to many women as some great feminist liberal when in practice she could hardly be more completely the opposite.  As Willey has discovered, Bill Clinton is not just an inveterate philanderer, but he is a serial abuser of women, and Hillary is his primary enabler:

5_president_bill_clintonAccording to former Arkansas state auditor Julia Hughes Jones, Hillary kept tabs on Bill’s womanizing, not so she could get him to stop or to fight with him about monogamy, but so she could head off any repercussions.  “Every time he was out and Hillary knew where he went,” Jones said, “she would call behind him to see what she needed to do to take care of it.”

According to Thomas Kuiper, who wrote I’ve Always Been a Yankee Fan, “Hillary sent out a group of investigators known as the ‘Truth Squad ‘while Clinton was Arkansas governor, to discourage many of Bill’s former lovers from going public.”  One wonders how they might have “discouraged” these women.  (p. 193)

Willey’s book is replete with examples of how they tried to discourage her, from a personal threat delivered by a passing jogger near her Richmond-area home to the killing of her cat.  One of the discouragements was delivered in the form of a chilling “look” that she got from Hillary herself.  Setting the stage, Willey was a member of the U.S. delegation at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995.  The Oval Office “assault” incident was well behind her.  This was her first paying job for the federal government, and it had come as a result of her repeated letters to Bill Clinton asking for one.  Hillary Clinton headed up the delegation:

The people in our delegation worked many evenings into wee hours of the morning, day after day, and all they wanted was to meet Hillary.  But they were essentially told, “She doesn’t have time for you.” It wasn’t going to happen.

“Well, that’s awful,” I said, always the fixer.  “I’m going to have to do something about that.”

I found one of her people.  “What’s it going to take?”  I asked.  “Ten minutes?  Fifteen minutes?  It’s the least she can do for them, you know.  If she can stand up and make a speech for thirty minutes, she can meet these people.”

So they arranged it.  I stood at the door to this room and cleared everybody who went in.  Hillary finally came in and shook a few hands.  Then somebody said, “If you don’t mind, we’d like to go around the room and introduce everybody.” Everyone stood in a large circle around the room and the introductions went around.  Standing near her, I was the last.  When it came around to me I said, “Kathleen Willey, formerly of your Social Office.” I thought maybe she would recognize me.  All I received was an icy cold glare.  I looked at her and we made eye contact, and I shuddered.  She knows, I thought to myself.  Oh God, she knows!  I felt chills.  Goose bumps stood up on my arms.  In that moment, I knew that she knew who I was.  She didn’t speak.  She turned back to the roomful of people and poured on the graciousness.  She thanked everyone and left. (pp. 90-91)

In the succeeding paragraph, Willey alludes to a similar incident that Juanita Broaddrick experienced.  Broaddrick says Bill raped her when he was Arkansas’s attorney general.    We do not have to rely upon Willey’s account of Broaddrick’s subsequent Hillary encounter.   Her “Open Letter to Hillary Clinton,” written in 2000, is on the Internet.  Here is an excerpt:


I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.

I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton’s bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering. Do you remember? You told the driver, “Bill has talked so much about Juanita”, and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill”. At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill”. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.

You can listen to Broaddrick’s account of the incident in her interview on YouTube entitled “Hillary Threatened Juanita Broaddrick 2 Weeks After Rape.”

“I think she’s always known; I think she’s always covered up for him…I can’t imagine someone covering up what a man, her husband, has done just for the sake of power,”

Broaddrick concludes.

Anybody but Hillary?

Hillary anybody but

Kathleen Willey’s motivation for coming out with her book when she did, in 2007, is precisely the same as my publishing what I had known for a long time in my article “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” which I posted on July 29, 2007.   This thoroughly reprehensible woman was getting entirely too close to a return to the White House.   Here is how Willey put it in her preface:

Afer ten years of living my private life, I need to come forward again, to remind America, especially American women, what Hillary and her husband will do.  It is not a matter of what they are capable of doing, but what they have done in their lust for the presidency.  They have wielded an ugly power over me and over many other women and witnesses.  They will do it again and, worst of all, they will do it in the name of feminism!

America is ready to elect a woman president.  The planets are perfectly aligned in Hillary’s favor, and many women will likely vote for her just because she is a woman, because it is time for a woman to be our president.  But Hillary Clinton is the wrong woman.

This is why I need to tell my story.  I know it will open old wounds for me, subject me to more dirty tricks, and make me vulnerable to an onslaught of attacks.  As an American and as a woman I have to share my story, because Hillary Clinton cannot claim to be an advocate for women if she victimizes us when no one is looking.  She cannot claim to support our empowerment when she uses power to betray us.  She cannot claim to be a feminist when she enables her husband as a sexual predator.  Hillary claims one thing and does another.  She is a lie.  (pp. xii-xiii)

Don’t expect anyone to point out the irony in the pages of the newspaper, but just above the Washington Post article on the big push for Hillary in Iowa was an article headlined “Behavior by brass vexes military.”  It was all about the recent sexual misconduct of a number of high-ranking officers, all of whom are only a few notches down from the level of commander-in-chief.

David Martin

January 29, 2014

B’Man: I want to add one little tidbit about sHillary:

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Whites Only

h/t Mami’s Shit

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or