Could Barack Obama Really Go Bulworth? by DC Dave

Could Barack Obama Really Go Bulworth?

Finally, a half year into his second four-year term in office, President Barack Obama has given the first indication that he might not have a wind-up key or an extension cord coming out of his back, and he has done it big-time.  Similarly deep into a May 15 New York Times article by Peter Baker on Obama’s many recent political woes, we find this little gem, “Yet Mr. Obama also expresses exasperation. In private, he has talked longingly of ‘going Bulworth,’ a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought.”

There it is.  Baker tries to make small of the revelation by characterizing Warren Beatty’s classic 1998 satirical autopsy of the American body politic as “little-remembered.”  The movie certainly made an impression on me, one that has lingered.  And much of the rest of the mainstream media took note of Obama’s private longing, recognizing, perhaps, that at last something a little more genuine than that long-delayed Hawaii birth certificate might have made its way out of the White House.  But it seems that their main reason for taking note of it was to limit its impact by steering us toward the wrong conclusions.

How could it be otherwise? Bulworth lays into our bribed-by-being-overpaid leading news hacks with the same zest that it takes on our puppet politicians.

If we needed any reminder of how similarly shackled the news folks are, the immediate loss by Rick Sanchez of his high-paying, high-profile CNN job for his merest hint of a Bulworth moment concerning Jewish media power, and his groveling attempt to get it back, was a powerful object lesson.

I first learned of Obama’s supposed private musing by reading about it in the column of the young and presumably ambitious Melinda Henneberger in The Washington Post.  Right off the bat she misinterprets what “going Bulworth” means, suggesting that it is the politician’s “political adversaries” who are holding him back.  Further on, she compounds her error of interpretation with this observation: “Obama is cautious by nature, so I don’t imagine we’re going to be treated to any raps that speak truth to the man — even if, sorry sir, but you are the man.”

Is it her youth and inexperience, or is it her naked ambition that could cause her to write such patent nonsense?  It’s possible that she doesn’t yet know it, but the whole point in a president, of all people, wanting to “go Bulworth” is that he is not “the man,” but wishes that he were.  In a certain sense, he is not even a man, much less the man.  He is Pinocchio wishing that he were human.

A Fox News crew predictably trivialized the “going Bulworth” line by calling the movie “little seen” and simply bad, suggesting that no one’s speech, much less the president’s, is the least bit constrained in this country, and that the Bulworth character’s message was all just so much liberal-type socialism.

All anyone needs to disabuse himself of the notion that Bulworth is the typical Hollywood promotion of socialism is to listen to this rap from the movie about the great artificial black-white divide in the country.

Right off the bat we are reminded that black leaders have been assassinated and that blacks have been victimized even more than poor whites by the loss of the country’s manufacturing base.  The unfettered Bulworth tells us, as well, that the big corporations that are responsible for many of the problems we face also own the media who determine the news agenda.  The liberated Bulworth is not exactly a standard socialist; he is the sort of political leader who would use his prominence to take on corrupt power in the country.  He is the kind of leader that we are starved for, whatever our political persuasion, and he is uttering truth, which is something that we are starved for even more.

The Fox News take on the Bulworth remark might have been bad, but Michael Tomasky, herding the liberal sheep for The Daily Beast was even worse:

In all the commentary I’ve seen on this, I haven’t yet seen anyone point out that going Bulworth is a pretty stupid idea, because the Warren Beatty character, after enjoying a brief resurgence in the polls, became as I recall sort of a laughingstock (at least, that’s what I thought) and then ended up staging his own assassination at the depths of his self-loathing. No. If we’re going to delve into movieland for analogies, it’s not Bulworth that Obama needs to “go,” but Rambo—on the Republicans, and in a hurry.

The rest of the article continues in that completely irrelevant and very nearly unreadable vein.  It’s almost as hard to read, in fact, as it is to watch Rick Sanchez humiliate himself in his futile attempt to get back on the corrupt gravy train.  A principal role of the media is to continue stirring up the phony left versus right conflict, using the old divide-and-conquer strategy while maintaining the illusion that we actually have legitimate choices when we go to the polls.  In their response to the “Bulworth” remark, the mainstream media played their role to the hilt.  The Fox News crowd in particular needs to be reminded that Senator Bulworth was not so much offering a prescription for our national ills as he was providing a clear-eyed diagnosis.  Such a proper diagnosis is the first thing we need, but it is the last thing they want, because they, as Bulworth points out so well, are among the worst of our national pathogens.

But does Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro or whoever he is really have it in him to go Bulworth?  Well, it’s a good sign that he has apparently at least paid some lip service to the concept.  One can hardly imagine such words ever coming out of the mouths of, say, either Bill or Hillary Clinton or either President Bush or either John, McCain or Kerry.  There is a third John of recent memory who came within sniffing distance of the presidency, John Edwards, whom I could actually have seen going Bulworth at some point.  Remember the “Two America’s” theme of his campaign?  It must have really given “Mr. Big” a case of the shivers, and now Edwards is as politically dead as Gary Hart.  Could our controlling criminal elite (CCE) really be getting nervous over this “Bulworth” peep out of Barry?

I think any nervousness would grow out of the fact that holders of power are always nervous about it and jealous of it, and they really do have a whole witch’s brew of secrets to keep the lid on.  Might he really go off the deep end and use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to reveal that the war on terror is a fraud and that the notion that a man in a cave in Afghanistan, depending completely in advance upon the total incompetence of America’s air defenses, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks is a patent, ridiculous lie?  They might even have started drawing up a contingency plan for Obama going Bulworth, even in the smallest degree, as soon as he did his private musing and well before it hit the pages of The New York Times.

Does Obama Have it in Him?

Absent the remark, though, Barack Obama, from his record, strikes us as very nearly the last person in the world who would actually go Bulworth.  Surely he knows that he is as much a nonentity as Rick Sanchez ever was, that he is the complete creation of those whom he would have to blow the whistle upon.  The chance that this particular dog would ever bite that feeding hand is about as close to zero as it’s possible to get.

Consider, as well, the particular unseemliness of a president hinting that he would really like to commit truth for the benefit of the American people, exposing the malignant power wielders behind the scenes, while he is coming down on actual whistleblowers in a fashion that is unprecedented in presidential history.  Is he signaling with his Bulworth remark that he secretly sympathizes with them?  So what?  He was open about the great sympathy he felt for Muslims and his intention to close the prison at Guantánamo, but he has massively escalated the drone war on people of the Muslim persuasion and the prison at Guantánamo is still a going concern.  Taking this president at his actual word has proven to be not a very good idea; seizing upon a reported private wistful sentiment, then, would seem to give a whole new meaning to the expression, “grasping at straws.”

So we can give up our daydreams about this president, or any president, coming on the air and asking why our sons and daughters must kill and die in Middle Eastern wars when there is only one nearby little country in the entire world where the majority of the people favored our invasion of Iraq, while they were not asked to risk a single son or daughter.  Nor is there any chance that Obama will go Bulworth and explain to the American people why we can no longer afford the enormous subsidy that we give, for no reason that serves our own interests, to that little country every year.  The man’s, or Mr. Big’s, or the CCE’s, or whatever-you-want-to-call-them’s vetting process for the presidency has become way too effective for that.

Presidential Qualifications

The top man’s résumé
Should be unassailable,
But that’ll be the day;
He wouldn’t be blackmailable.

~DC Dave

Finding His Inner Bobby Kennedy

The Post’s young Ms. Henneberger might know a bit more about the significance of Bulworth, though, than she is letting on.  She gives it away with this paragraph:

For those who missed “Bulworth,” Warren Beatty’s satirical, smart and widely mocked 1998 movie, which I loved for daring to be dorky, it’s about a hollow, bored faker of a public servant. California Sen. Jay Bulworth is a third-way Democrat and first-rate fundraiser who means nothing that tumbles out of his mouth. Until, that is, having given up on life entirely, he finds his inner Bobby Kennedy by hanging out in the ‘hood.

The similarity of the fictional Jay Billington Bulworth to the real Robert F. Kennedy is so inescapable that even a Washington Post columnist couldn’t help but notice.  I took note of it in a book review that I wrote back in 2000.  It is repeated here in full:

In much the same way that Warren Beatty’s movie Bulworth, for a political movie from Hollywood, was a breath of fresh air, Richard D. Mahoney’s Sons and Brothers, the Life and Times of Jack and Bobby Kennedy is a breath of fresh air from an American academic historian. What strikes you in either case is the realism. It is a realism born of the clash of the clearly strong idealism of the writer and the reality of naked, corrupt power in what has become of America’s once great republic.

In Bulworth, it hits you early in the little-noted dead-on portrayal of the big-time gangster with whom Senator Bulworth arranges for his own murder. When he ushers the man into his Senate office, Bulworth greets him like a long-lost brother. The visitor looks nothing like the stereotypical Hollywood mobster, nor like the few who have been subjects of the occasional show trial like John Gotti. From the universal respect he appears to command and from the man’s confident, prosperous appearance one thinks he might be something like the head lobbyist for the American Association of Retired People or a senior lawyer at Covington and Burling.

Beatty obviously knows his topic. In the late 1970s The Washington Post reported that the organized crime unit of a suburban Washington police force was there writing down license plate numbers (á la The Godfather) outside a mansion where a large dinner party was going on. The host was a major political contributor and king maker who, The Post reported, had been involved in casino ventures with members of the Gambino family and the Meyer Lansky organization. The guest of honor that night was Beatty’s sister, the actress Shirley McLain.

A history of the modern American presidency that ignores organized crime is a fairy tale. Mahoney’s treatment of the lives and the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy is, in that respect, like a book for grown-ups compared to other historians’ children’s books. Others may have paid some lip service to the various connections of the Kennedy family to the mob, but Mahoney, the first John F. Kennedy Scholar at the University of Massachusetts and the Kennedy Library, fleshes the story out and sees the larger importance of it.

Joe Kennedy, Sr., of necessity, worked hand and glove with known mobsters in amassing his bootlegging fortune during Prohibition. Working outside the law in a major business enterprise, he was himself, by definition, a member of organized crime. The connection continued at least up to his arrangement with the Chicago mob to deliver the deciding votes in the 1960 presidential election.

Jack and Bobby’s connection was not only as beneficiaries of the 1960 accommodation, something of which they had to have been aware, but also through the ongoing Mafia-CIA plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, a plot that they inherited from the Eisenhower administration but poured extra effort into after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Further entangling Jack with the mob was his sharing of the mistress, Judith Campbell Exner, with Chicago kingpin, Sam Giancana.

These are the connections we know about, and yet Mahoney is obviously a deep admirer of both Jack and Bobby, and the reader comes away from his book sharing the admiration. Both of them had leadership qualities that distinguish them from those we have had imposed upon us since their deaths. They grew in office. They learned from their mistakes. They were both extraordinarily courageous.

Jack, who had much greater expertise and interest in foreign than in domestic policy, probably never intended to go as far as he did on civil rights, but circumstances, and his ability to empathize, pulled him along. On the foreign front, on the other hand, his instincts all along were diametrically opposite from that of the Cold Warriors who held the real power in the country. He was determined over the long run not to stand in the way of the nationalist aspirations of the Vietnamese, as the French had done with our encouragement and assistance, and his pursuit of detente with the Soviets in the last few months of his life was genuine.

This was more than enough to get him killed, but Mahoney focuses upon Bobby’s anti-Mafia crusade as the straw that broke the camel’s back. Looking at the role played by mobster Jack Ruby in the episode is enough to convince one of the mob’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination, but there is a lot more evidence as well, which Mahoney brings out. Though they had the motive and the means to pull it off, and a lot of evidence points to them, the question remains as to how they thought they could get by with it and why they were right. Was the mob able to order up a phony investigation and to whip the press into line? Maybe Mahoney simply knew how far he could go and still get his book published. As it is, the book has received far less publicity than it deserves.

Mahoney’s big revelation to this reviewer jaded in Kennedy lore was the eerie resemblance of Bobby Kennedy’s brief bid for the presidency to the fictional last campaign of Senator Jay Billington Bulworth. The more he saw of the world and the more personal tragedy he endured the more he seemed determined simply to do and to say what was right, regardless of the consequences. And like Bulworth he was wildly popular with the poor and with minorities, but also like Bulworth he got quite bad press, even from the “liberal” establishment. Could there be a better indicator of his genuineness? These are the same people who covered up in his brother’s assassination, after all.

But there was also the same foreboding, as “…some around Bobby began to talk openly about the inevitable. French novelist Romain Gary, then living in Los Angeles, told Pierre Salinger, Your candidate is going to get killed. When Jimmy Breslin asked several reporters around a table whether they thought Bobby had the stuff to go all the way, John J. Lindsay replied, Yes, of course, he has the stuff to go all the way, but he’s not going to go all the way. The reason is that somebody is going to shoot him. I know it and you know it, just as sure as we’re sitting here. He’s out there waiting for him.”

And, indeed, he, or they were, just as they were waiting for Bulworth.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see a new flurry of activity in the CCE’s ongoing patsy-grooming process as soon as the word “Bulworth” came out of Obama’s mouth.  Wooden though he may seem, the incumbent presidential seat-warmer surely has the requisite imagination.  He knows, as well, that the lapdog press would, on cue, quickly start barking for the patsy’s scalp.  There is an ultimate sanction against a president or any of our politicians “going Bulworth,” so, sad to say, it will have to be nothing more than a fond reverie.

David Martin

May 22, 2013

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 WordPress.com

Jewish Influence In America

I can’t get my head around the numbers. And because I question the unbelievable control Jews have on America, our thoughts and our policies, I am considered an “anti-Semite” by many people. I am considered a hater and a racist.

I am just asking the right questions and so should you:

How can 2% of the population of the USA (less than that in the world) wield so much power, hold such a vast number of political positions, manipulate the media with absolute control, run the elite universities and law schools, and have so much wealth as they do (50% of America’s billionaires are Jewish)?

Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual, and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks, and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s largest newspaper chain and most influential single newspaper, the New York Times. In the late 1960s, Jews already constituted 20% of the faculty of elite universities and 40% of the professors of elite law schools; today, these percentages doubtless are higher.

~Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1993)

Mr Ginsberg has a whole lot more to say on the subject here.

Some will claim that Jews are simply exceptional and very, very smart. According to David Duke’s research, this is not true. That due to “hard work” they earn their positions of influence. I just don’t agree. First, of the Jews I’ve gotten to know over the years, their intelligence is basically the same as most people… some smart, some stupid. I never saw anything exceptional, but I did see that other Jews’ influence got them seats at the best schools and jobs. As for hard work, most I have encountered wouldn’t know how to conduct a hard day’s work and if they were forced, would bitch and moan until it was through… constantly trying to figure out a way never to do it again.

I have worked in very hard laborious jobs in extreme conditions of heat with hundreds of men and I never met a Jew on the job. It always seems to be the cushiest positions you see them in. Maybe that’s just me, but it is my experience. Surely there are some professionals, like Doctors that work hard and long hours, but I’ve never met any Jew that does LABOR. I know one guy that will TELL you he works hard, when, in fact, he sits in front of a computer all day and gambles. I’d be willing to bet he couldn’t last 5 minutes with me in my garden, much less actually working with his hands.

Look, if we are to be real about things, we need to evaluate these claims I make. Any sensible person should be aware of what I am sharing, but it does take more than the normal American TV watcher or newspaper reader to realize it for the truth that it is. Why is that? Because Jews run those outlets and they don’t want to advertise the truth because you will get pissed if you find out the truth. It mucks up their control game.

“During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals … 20 percent of professors at the leading universities … 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington … 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.”

~Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (1995)

And please. Stop with blaming all those OTHER inane entities the disinformation agents and useful idiots  (like Alex Jones) tell us it is:

Let’s get serious. First of all, it is critical to know how much we give to Israel and why. It is officially noted that we give in excess of $3BILLION yearly to Israel. This does not include all the various hidden military equipment. We are told that they are our best ally in the middle east and that we need to help them protect themselves from the rogue nations, like Iran. But any cursory look shows us that they are the only ones that are rogue. They are the only ones in the middle east that are attacking other countries and continuously accusing those countries of the very crimes they conduct. If Jews don’t control our policies, why are we sending so much money to them and furnishing them with the ordinance to kill so many children? Why do we turn away and disregard their assaults on innocents? Why do they get special treatment and protection from their abuses against common international laws? Why do we continuously attack Muslim countries if we aren’t following their policies? Do you still honestly believe that those middle eastern countries are OUR enemies… or theirs?

Why Do They Do It?

No, the real reason we treat them as special is that we are scared of them and that we have been brainwashed into their sob stories of lies and their religious garbage of their being the “Chosen Ones” of God. The politicians are scared because if they say something against their influence and control, they are immediately labelled by the media they control as anti-semites and vast sums of money are spent to unseat those truthful people. Many have been brainwashed by the Holohoax story, which is easily shown as the lie it is, with just a small amount of research. Even a 15 year old can figure it out. And too many “Christians” have been duped into believing that Christ following is really “judeo-Christianity” when He constantly taught against any such a stupid notion.

You can see the politicians every year fall all over themselves at the AIPAC convention:

and even in the State House…

Oh, God. It’s Pitiful.

Even the Jewish newspapers know it is control and MONEY in regards to politics.

Jewish influence is far more disproportionate to the size of the community Jewish leaders and US officials acknowledge, but so is the amount of money they contribute to election campaigns.

~The Jerusalem Post

JFK Assassination Enablers?

JFK Assassination Enablers?

Guest Column by Hugh Turley

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and stories about that fateful day in November 1963 have already started appearing in the American media.  It is a popular belief that if there were a conspiracy, someone would come forward and the press would tell us.

Then why is there still no news about Pfc. Eugene Dinkin, a cryptographic code operator for the Army?   Declassified CIA and FBI documents released in the 1990s reveal a strange tale that raises the question: Could Dinkin have learned the details of an assassination plot from the classified documents he handled, or was he a paranoiac who somehow made a number of amazingly accurate prophecies?

On October 16, 1963, when Dinkin was stationed in Metz, France, he wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy warning that the president would be assassinated on or about November 28 and requesting an interview by the Justice Department.  Dinkin sent the letter registered mail, and to prevent it from being intercepted, used the return address of an Army friend, Pfc. Dennis De Witt. He did not receive an answer.

Dinkin later changed the predicted assassination date to November 22 and said it would happen in Texas.  He believed the military was involved in the plot and that a Communist would be blamed.  The day after the murder, the Washington Evening Star reported that the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was a “pro-Castro Marxist.”

On October 25, 1963, Dinkin traveled to the United States Embassy in Luxembourg to apprise a Mr. Cunningham, the Charge d’Affaires, of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.  He was turned away.

Dinkin was scheduled for a psychiatric examination on November 4, and fearing confinement as a psychotic, he went absent without leave from his unit.  He traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, using a false Army identification and forged travel orders. There, he appeared in the press room of the United Nations office on November 6 and 7 and “told reporters he was being persecuted.” Among those who heard his story were the editor of the Geneva Diplomat and representatives of Newsweek and the Time-Life media group.

The AWOL Dinkin was the subject of CIA cables on November 18 and again on November 29, 1963.  The latter cable advised the White House, State Department, FBI, and Secret Service of Dinkin’s assassination predictions and of his trip to Switzerland.

Upon returning to his unit in Metz, he was arrested by Army intelligence officers and soon transferred to Walter Reed Army hospital in Washington, D.C., where he was treated for “paranoia,” according to an FBI report.  Afterwards, he was discharged from the Army.

The FBI interviewed him on April 1, 1964.  By then, perhaps fearing prosecution for revealing classified material, Dinkin said his theory came from newspaper articles and acknowledged that it “was extremely ‘wild’ and could be construed [as] ‘crazy’.”

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms informed the Warren Commission about Dinkin’s predictions about the assassination, but his name was never mentioned in the encyclopedic official record.

The journalists who heard Dinkin’s story in Switzerland may have had it within their power to prevent the assassination of President Kennedy. By writing nothing about his documented allegations, they failed to exercise that power. In addition, they knew that he had been detained after coming forward—but in the wake of the assassination with the investigation proceeding, they remained silent.  How many other cases like Dinkins remain unreported?

Pfc. Dinkin miscalculated when he went AWOL to contact journalists whom he mistakenly believed were liberty’s guardians.  The Roman poet Juvenal asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?”) It’s still a good question.

________________________________________________________________________________

This article appeared originally in the May 2013 Hyattsville Life and Times with the more sweeping title of simply “Assassination Enablers?”  The article is reprinted here with the permission of the Maryland newspaper, though it should be noted that, for the first time in Mr. Turley’s many years as a columnist, an editorial disclaimer has been appended.

For more on the Dinkin case, see “Abuse of Psychiatry in the Kennedy Assassination.”  For more on the media’s role in the JFK assassination cover-up see “Fake Media Critic?” and “Pruden, Aynesworth, Rather: Propagandists All.”

I also found this reference material that is enlightening.

The Great Monica Lewinsky Misdirection by DC Dave

The Great Monica Lewinsky Misdirection

The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr

A review by David Martin

Monica Lewinsky

Kenneth G. Gormley, interim dean of the Duquesne University Law School, with this faux-weighty tome, continues the great misdirection done by Kenneth Starr and the American news media with respect to the Clinton scandals.  With all the later fuss that was made over the relatively inconsequential Monica Lewinsky episode, it is easy to forget that Starr was first appointed to look into the Whitewater scandal and, even more importantly, into the violent death of deputy White House Counsel, Vincent Foster.  (We have noted earlier that the original connection between Whitewater and the Foster death was wholly artificial.  It was clearly ginned up for the purpose of getting an authority figure in the form of an Independent Counsel to put his imprimatur upon the very weak case that the U.S. Park Police had made for Foster’s suicide. See the section entitled “The Search for a Mercier” in “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster.”)

From the beginning, because he was purported to be the choice of Jesse Helms protégé David Sentelle, one of the three judges in the federal panel that appointed him, Starr was painted as a right-wing fanatic out to get Bill Clinton (Actually, Sentelle was chosen to head the panel by ultimate government insider, Chief Justice William Rehnquist).  With that portrait fixed in our minds, we are not supposed to think about the fact that Starr had been the solicitor general under the “moderate” Republican, George H.W. Bush, and that Clinton and the elder Bush were and are quite close both politically and personally.

Kenneth Starr

Gormley plays the Starr-as-partisan, rather than Starr-the-inside-fixer, angle to the hilt.  The book has been touted as offering new details on the death of Foster, but, in fact, it has virtually none of any consequence.  It hardly even revisits the old details.  Gormley’s method of evaluating Starr’s Foster investigation is pure deduction.  He takes Starr’s press-created reputation as an ideologue out for blood as a given.   He then tips his hat to Starr for his surprising fair-mindedness in finally agreeing with his predecessor, Robert Fiske—after a full three years of foot-dragging which he mischaracterizes as exhaustive investigation—that Foster did, indeed, commit suicide.  In the book, as in the actual chronology, the Starr sally into the titillating and target-rich environment of Bill’s tom-catting serves as both a distraction from the Foster matter and a further reinforcement of the Starr image as an out-of-control right-wing crusader.

Many of the book’s reviewers praise Gormley for having “interviewed everyone” connected to the Clinton-Starr dust-up.  In fact, the book’s essential dishonesty is revealed by Gormley’s studied avoidance of at least one person who is absolutely essential for understanding what went on with Starr’s investigation of the Foster death.  That is Starr’s original lead investigator, Miguel Rodriguez, who, as anyone at all familiar with the case knows, resigned in disgust rather than go along with what he perceived was shaping up to be a cover-up.  Gormley makes no mention of Rodriguez.  How can we possibly take seriously an author who seems to have no curiosity at all about Rodriguez’s actions and apparently has no interest in what more he might have to say?  (Those sucked into buying the Gormley book because of the false promise of new details in the Foster case may seek consolation by reading Rodriguez’s resignation and my analysis of it here.  Details don’t get much newer than that, because the letter did not come to light until December 2009.)

Ken Gormley

Another key person Gormley didn’t interview is the inconvenient witness in the Foster case, Patrick Knowlton.  Gormley is touted on the book’s dust jacket as an expert on independent counsels, yet he airbrushes out of the picture the historic role played by Knowlton and his lawyer, John Clarke, in challenging an independent counsel’s findings.  Over Starr’s vigorous and tightly reasoned written objections, which you will find nowhere in this supposedly “definitive” volume on Starr’s work, the three-judge panel ordered Starr to include Clarke’s 20-page letter as an appendix to his Foster report.  Two other people mentioned in the report also have letters appended, making the complete report 137 pages in length.  Apparently not wanting his readers even to know of the existence of this appendix, Gormley writes that Starr’s report is 114 pages long.

One small new fact we learn from Gormley related to the investigation of the Foster death is that the late John Butzner, the lone member of the three-judge panel appointed by a Democrat, had misgivings about the appointment of Starr on the dual grounds that he was too much of a Washington insider and

that he was perceived as too politically partisan.  Gormley has interviewed Judge Butzner, and he has also examined the papers that Butzner left to the library of the University of Virginia.

Vince Foster
http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/images/vince-foster.jpg

Matching in dishonesty his failure even to mention the existence of Miguel Rodriguez is what Gormley doesn’t tell us about that can be found among Butzner’s papers.  That is not only the complete text of the lawyer Clarke’s devastating 20-page letter and Starr’s very strong brief for keeping it out of his report, but also Butzner’s winning argument for accepting the motion that it be included.

“I suspect that if we deny the motion,” he wrote to Sentelle (the “Republican partisan” who favored denying the motion) and Judge Peter T. Fay on September 25, 1997, “we will be charged as conspirators in the cover-up.” (For a full treatment of this episode, see “Documents Reveal Judges’ Deliberations on Death.”)

David Martin

April 15, 2010

Addendum

In February of 2012 recorded tapes of Miquel Rodriguez’s telephone conversations with Reed Irvine, the late director of Accuracy in Media, were posted on YouTube.

They reveal, most importantly, his frustration in his attempt to blow the whistle to the American press on the ongoing cover-up being performed by Kenneth Starr and his crew.  The transcript of those tapes can be found at FBICover-up.com.

David Martin

May 7, 2013

Original Article published at DC Dave’s blog.

The Sheople’s Quiz by The Goon Squad

A Quiz to See How Badly Your Brain is Infected With Zionism

(Without using the Internet or other sources, try and answer these questions from memory.)

1.) How many American troops died fighting during WWII to make the world safe for Zionism?

2.) How many Jews died during WWII?

3.) Name two 2016 presidential candidates and which one is an Israeli-Firster and the other a Marrano Jew by way of Cuba?

4.) How much money and other forms of aid does the American taxpayer get forced to donate to the world’s leading terrorist state, Israel, each year?

5.) Who won the last Super Bowl and who is second in command at the Treasury Department?

6.) Which foreign nation is the only one Congress has exempted from registering its lobbyists and will not be subject to the same financial pain Americans will feel thru the sequestration?

7.) Which presidential administration, Clinton’s or Obama’s has appointed more Jews to key positions?

8.) Remember the Zionist Jew Rupert Murdoch’s phone hacking scandal that erupted in not so Great Britain? What is the current status of ‘Sir’ Ruppie breaking of numerous laws regarding that case?

9.) Which nation is the only one on the planet without defined borders and refuses to say what those borders are?

10.) Remember Iceland who was getting gang raped by the international bankster gangster crowd? What happened to that nation and what is it’s current economic status?

It Would Be So Much Easier If…

It Would Be So Much Easier If…

Only In America…

From Greg at The Goon Squad
(Where Brains are Tenderly Washed, Disinfected and Made Usable Again)

Only In America…

Will people get in their gas guzzling tank-like vehicles and drive 1/2 mile to the gym so they can walk 2 miles on a treadmill.

Will Christians go to church on Sunday, pray to the ‘Prince of Peace,’ Jesus Christ, then spend the rest of the week lustily cheering on the USA and Israel genocide against the Muslim world.

Will these same Christians on Sunday, read from the gospel of love, the New Testament, then spend the rest of the week thumping the Old Testament, which is filled with hate; incest; rape; drunkenness; murder; genocide; cannibalism; infanticide and revenge.

Will people set their rather large posteriors down on a couch, surround themselves with mountains of greasy potato chips, then wash all that junk down with a ‘diet’ soda because they’re watching their weight.

Will people spend huge sums of money on weight loss programs, then drive the family to McDonald’s to eat.

Will people spend 50 thousand on some gas guzzling behemoth, then shop for the cheapest, adulterated, toxic chemical laden ‘food’ from Wal Mart to feed their family.

Will people raise all sorts of hell about abortion clinics, saying its murder, then let their government murder millions of innocents, mostly women and children, in the ME, SW Asia and Africa w/o protesting.

Yes, America, these murdered children are human beings, or they were. Where’s the tears for these souls?

These too are children, murdered with your tax dollars. Feel proud to be a ‘Gawd fearin’ Christian’ now, Amerikkka?

Video and narration by BuelahMan

Articles referenced or worth reading

Bible Atrocities

EXCLUSIVE: Cowardice Redefined, The New Face of American Serial Killers

Exit Stage Left: The Actors

It appears that there are actors involved with the False Flag Event in Boston. And if you don’t believe this old redneck, maybe you’ll believe the Boston Police Commissioner:

How about the cowboy and fake blood?

How about the fake bombing victim?

You can always check this video at the 9:14 mark, just before the intentional blue screen when they realized how fake it looked from that angle:

close up

Did you see where CNN interviewed the same woman immediately after the bombing, then again, elsewhere, the same woman on a different subject. Amazing how she witnessed both events:

Watch it all, but especially the 2:45 mark.

Something is not right.

And if you still doubt that actors can be used, then you really need to watch this video:

EDITED 6AM, 4/26 (Info provided by Greg at the Goon Squad)

h/t Digger, Marcell and NODISINFO

The Why’s Of The Boston Bombing

There are surely several reasons “why” the did this false flag event. To me, enough focus (at least for the time being) has been made on the victims. Let us look at some detail that many might not know, then consider the why’s.

We (at least I) was under the impression that the now never discussed bombing fire at the library was somewhere else: no where near the race. This included a tweet from the Boston Globe that said “BREAKING NEWS: Police will have a controlled explosion on 600 block on Boylston Street“. But where is this place?

I don’t know about you, but I call that a “smoking gun”.

One thing we must admit to ourselves is that the media plays the game. Maybe sometimes in subservience, but also framing the mindset of people to believe certain aspects of the propaganda.

Reminds me of this:

But, B’Man, there were no actors, they were all real.

I dunno:

You tell me.

I suggest you read this post from the Memory Hole blog. Here is a snippit:

“For the most part we do not first see, and then define,” Walter Lippmann observed in 1921, “we define first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture.”[1]

A founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Lippmann looked with suspicion to the potential dangers the hopelessly uninformed public posed in the unfolding “Great Society.”

Along these lines, a veteran hypnotherapist and mind control expert interviewed in 2001 by investigative journalist Jon Rappoport observes,

The media gives you the illusion that you are seeing something. That’s the billion‐dollar key to mind control … 90% of all the mind control in the world is done by the media, and it is all based on the viewer or the reader never seeing anything really beyond the surface of what is presented.”[2]

What exactly took place on April 15 at the Boston Marathon is unclear, yet what is now evident is a stark divergence between the narrative description of excessive carnage meted out as a result of the explosive devices and at least a portion of the video and photographic documentation of the bombing itself.

Are You Just A Believer Or Do You THINK?

Digger shared a link with me that contains a sequence of events from a video that focuses on the double amputee that supposedly had his legs blown off. I want to share those with you here and ask you, especially if you have any trauma medical background (in the Armed Forces or ER or whatever), what is wrong with these pictures? (pictures and narrative by Fist-Of-Freedom)

I’ve studied and graduated EMT-B certification with the state of Oregon. I’ve been on calls with heavy arterial bleeds, internal bleeding, fatalities, doa’s. I am speaking from direct personal experience with severe trauma.

Here is a telling photograph of the amputee actor. I encourage readers to view the photo side by side with my analysis.

http://www.kaotic.com/media/pictures…42b556ee65.jpg

If you loose both your legs from explosive trauma half your blood is gone in one minute via the femoral arteries, youre dead after two. Bleeding out is worse with blunt force trauma (like shrapnel) because flesh is torn rather than cut, exposing more arterial and vascular tissue. The human body holds 5 to 6 LITERS of blood. If that really happened you would see blood EVERYWHERE, the guy would be drenched in it. You would also see what’s called arterial spurtting from the injury. Most likely he would vomit after turning ghost white from shock, then turning delirious or passing out. As for the “tourniquet”…

Its not even tied off, its suspended via gravity, which would literally do nothing to an arterial sever. There’s no pressure applied. There’s no knott with a turn stick for leverage. You can clearly see a gap in the nonexistent wrap job on his left inner thigh (left anterior proximal for you experts) His hands have no blood on them. There’s no blood on the ground. The color in his hands and lips shows good circulation.

This is an actor. This is staged. How did they pull it off though? I can show you.

Here in frame six on the left we see the the man with a hood setting up the fake leg wound prosthetics. His attention and hands are right there. The woman is acting as a shield covering what’s happening.
Frame 6

Here in frame eight the prosthetics are in place. Amidst all this chaos seconds after the explosion the hooded man takes the time to put on his sunglasses which is a signal.
Frame 8

Here in frame nine with sunglasses now on the hooded man and the woman make eye contact, signal received.
Frame 9

In frame eleven after recieving the go signal the woman makes an open hand gesture the direction both of them are looking, signaling the staged injuries are in place for cameras. The prone amputee raises his left prosthetic injury into the air over the woman’s shoulder. No blood is present. The bone is dry, no blood on his leg above the knee, no blood on the woman, no arterial spurt, nothing.
Frame 11

Here in frame fourteen the woman turns her head right but is still holding up that open palm signal with her left hand. The hooded man again busies himself pouring fake blood on the pavement behind the woman. The amputee has both fake injuries in the air now. There is still no blood on his legs, his skin above the injury is clean and dry.
Frame 14

Frame twenty, the fake blood and prosthetics are in place. The amputee gives an open hand gesture along with the woman to bring the cameras in. We’re now twenty frames in and still not a drop of fresh blood from a double leg amputation. His legs are dry, the woman is dry and unscathed. Both are making the same hand gesture.
Frame 20

These are actors. This is staged. It was flash powder. There was no crock pot nail bomb. There are no bombers, only patsy. If your looking for a gunman look at the Army in the streets of Boston. Share this knowledge with everyone.

ATS

A Song For 9/11

Elvis has obviously left the building:

Another parody by DC Dave regarding the real culprits of 9/11.

Based on Elvis Presley’s “Can’t Help Falling In Love With You”

Wise men say
Only fools rush in
So why are we so quick in solving major crimes?

Pigs fly high
Santa’s sleigh flies higher
And buildings fall down from a kerosene fire.

Like the water flows
From a high place to a low
The laws of science don’t change
When shills tell us what’s so.

Just this once
Think it all the way through
And ask yourself, “If not them, then who?”

Like the water flows
From a high place to a low
The laws of science don’t change
When shills tell us what’s so.

Just this once
Think it all the way through
And ask yourself, “If not him, then who?”

http://www.dcdave.com/poet15/130407.htm

Video and vocals by BuelahMan

We Are Doomed

Pass it on…

Falling To Pieces For Israel

New parody by DCDave:
http://www.dcdave.com/poet15/130405.htm

Falling To Pieces For Israel

(to Patsy Cline’s “I Fall to Pieces”)

You fall to pieces
At just the sound of their name.
You fall to pieces,
Now we’ve wised up to their game:

They want us to think that you work for us
Because we wanted you,
Went to the polls for you.
Well we’re sorry we see what you say and do:
They say “boo,” and you fall to pieces.

You fall to pieces.
We see what you’re all about.
You fall to pieces.
You’re only there to sell out.

You know who puts butter upon your bread.
You’ll jump through hoops for it.
Do loop de loops for it.
If you get out of line just a little bit
They flash cash and you fall to pieces.
They flash cash and you fall to pieces.

Featuring new singing sensation, Liz Dilling

Video by BuelahMan

Dancing With The Elephant In The Room

Derived from the original article provided by Augureye Express:

http://augureye.blogspot.com/2013/03/dancing-with-elephant-in-room.html

Video and narration by BuelahMan:

Graphics provided by David Dees:

http://www.zetatalk6.com/dees.htm

“WAKE UP” … indeed Mr. Jones!

I have asked this question here and many other places (especially Alex Jones’ sites comment sections). How is it that virtually everything from the government and MSM is a lie, EXCEPT when it comes to WWII? Are you insisting that in that case, they told us the truth? The alternative media is full of half-truthers. Or as Digger puts it, “Toxic Truth“:

What is the point in offering someone a $100 bill, but before you hand it to them you rip it in half!?

There are people out there, such as Alex Jones who intentionally hide the real truth from his sycophantic followers. These followers are brainwashed and he feeds it. He (and many others like him) tell their gullible followers these toxic Truths like “the Elites” or “the Banksters” did it:

But the purpose of this essay is to express that we should not tolerate characters who are on the speaking circuits for many many years within the Truth movement telling us that IT’S THE BANKERS.

FUCK OFF …….the bankers my arse.

This is pure unadulterated subversion. This is junk Truth, this is arsenic Truth, this is toxic Truth, this is pseudo Truth, this is half Truth – therefore disinformation. I ain’t ‘avin it. Bollocks to their ‘it’s the bankers’