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….”
 http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/man-of-the-moment/2005/11/12/1131578276019.html

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. 
 http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/OPINION/511130308/1016 
 (now dead link)
 I think your source may have also been the Washington Post.  Am I correct?

Sincerely,

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.

swinchesterhillary

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

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

We Are Watching You Rand Paul


B’Man’s new series, “We Are Watching You”

In this inaugural presentation, we focus on Rand Paul, the next probable US Republican (aka reTHUGlican) presidential candidate.
He shows us to whom his allegiance is fully given (just as every other President and presidential hopeful of the last 30+ years, or more).
He donned the beanie and humped the wall. Now, he explains that Israel is our Besties and that we will protect them at all costs.

And America will (again) kowtow to foolishness and seal the fate of our demise.

Rand Paul interview video courtesy of SavageNationLiberty
http://youtu.be/h48GpZ3b23g

Frantic Moving Eyeball video courtesy of Digital Dudz (very cool t-shirt design… check them out):
http://youtu.be/wDS6d_KC1Rc

Background music “Restless Sleep” by Gurdonark
ccMixter
2007 – Licensed under
Creative Commons
Attribution (3.0)
http://ccmixter.org/media/files/gurdo…

Video by BuelahMan
http://www.buelahman.wordpress.com

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

TweedleDumb and TweedleDumber

Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer bow before the Jew at their biggest contributor’s shindig.


Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle

Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle

by DC Dave

social-net-hack-300x225

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.

BloombergBusinessweek.com reported last week that Ruddy’s Newsmax.com 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.

a6

image

ME/OBIT-BEYER

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.

Newsmax

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.

220px-Kessler_author_2005_med_res

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 Amazon.com 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?

FBI-HackerRuddy

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?

feat_newsmax11__02__614x365

__________________________________________________________________________________________

* 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

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

The Holocaust: For Rednecks

jew20761542_n

Most folks that read here are already informed about the lies from the tribe regarding the “Holocaust”, so this post is not necessarily for you (although if you have not seen this particular video on the subject, it is one of the best made).

No, this post is for my fellow rednecks who have been shovel-fed the Big Lie so that you would not say anything… just go along with the officialanti-semitism-facebook.jpg story (because we all know how wonderful and magnanimous the Jew is… only capable of truth and never an ulterior motive). I mean, think of all the preachers that tell you how wonderful they are: “Chosen” by God, Himself, so surely they are the most truthful, non-manipulating souls to have ever lived on this 9,000 year old Earth (snark).

For many decades we have been shown movie after movie, story after story, lie after lie regarding the one thing that made it possible for the Jews/Zionists to obtain your undying sympathies while solidifying their grasp upon the Palestinian People’s land. Each of these lies are supported by Big Media, especially the Jew owned Hollywood studios which have made countless Holocaust movies (and/or thousands of movies denigrating Germany of the day). I dare you to click on the Hollywood link and measure the shnozzes, if you don’t believe me.

It makes me sick that we have been so gullible; so easily led to believe lies by these very people whom Jesus, Himself, addressed as LIARS. But it is never too late to learn the truth.

Before you simply knee-jerk your self into a tizzy, thinking that I am nothing more than a hater, don’t just skip over the damned movie I just linked to. Watch it, and then comment below and say whatever you like. We can discuss it. But the first rude-ass Jew that says some BS without a real discussion will be made unwelcome immediately.

YahoodPromisedLandAnd if the linked movie is removed (which I would almost guarantee will happen before long) you can always watch (and download it to share with others) at CODOH (in a variety of sizes and resolutions). I have saved it to my PC for the future.

Now its possible that you may just ask, “Why does it matter?”

It matters because this Big Lie is one of the most important controlling aspects of modern history. It has been used in so many ways: to steal your MONEY, to make you subservient to their rule (and seemingly enjoying it), and to make it possible for them to wantonly murder the ones they stole that land from in that little shithole in the desert. They have used this lordship over you redneck gentiles to make YOU serve them in their wars of expanding that shithole, killing far too many of your friends and relatives, all in the name of “freedom” (when freedom is the last damned thing they want for you).

HOLOHOAX-EXTORTION-FOR-DUMMIES

Its time to understand what they have done. And to STOP them in their tracks.

http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com

http://www.Nazigassings.com

http://www.CODOH.com

http://www.VHO.com

http://www.Holohoax101.org

http://www.Germarrudolf.com

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Is Ukraine’s New Prime Minister a Jew?

Is Ukraine’s New Prime Minister a Jew?

by DC Dave

Arseniy-Yatsenyuk

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.”

280214mccain

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:

A4-533

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?

Victoria-Nuland

Ms Nuland pointing out
her husband’s shortcomings

6a00d8341c513253ef00e54f16275f8833-800wi

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.

banner_1

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

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

B’Man’s Redneck Watch: Yankee Hypocrites Need To Leave The South The Hell Alone

Down Dixie Way

Notes of a Fed-Up Southerner

By

March 6, 2014

Coming up as I did a Southern boy, usually barefoot, lots of times with a cane pole and a string of bream I caught in Machodoc Creek, and other signs of higher civilization, I believe I could get tired of Northerners huffing and puffing about how moral they are. Ain’t nothing like a damn Yankee for smarmy hypocrisy. They can spit it out in chunks like saw logs. A Yankee can’t open his mouth without preaching about how everybody else ought to do something he won’t do himself.

It’s always the same thing, about how the South keeps blacks in poverty and has lynch mobs. (Actually, it’s been at least three weeks since I was in a lynch mob.) To listen to these pious frauds, you’d think Northerners just loved black people and spent most of their time with them at the country club, talking the stock market. Why, how else could it be?

I couldn’t lie so much if you gave me a bird dog and a buzz saw. It ain’t in me. The worst schools in the country are in Mississippi, which doesn’t have any money, and the second worst in Washington, DC, which has all our money. Yes, Washington, so virtuous it makes your teeth curl.  How many white kids are in those schools? Uh-huh. It’s you and him integrate, not us.

You’ve heard about white flight. In nearly about every city in the North white people streak for the suburbs so’s not to be near black people, and then they talk about how bad Southerners are for doing the same thing. I guess talking moral is more fun than being it.

Fact is, you can see more social, comfortable integration in a catfish house in Louisiana than you can in probably all of Washington.

Now, sometimes I have to yield to the truth. I don’t like to, but it’s forced on me. Blacks do live miserable in Southern cities.It can’t be denied. There’s a shameful list of awful cities and it hurts me to write it: Newark, Trenton, Camden, Detroit, Flint, Chicago, and Gary. Pretty much the entire South…

Please read the entire article at LewRockwell.com

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

You Get What You Deserve

966718_10151973782358189_1881063783_o

h/t DC Dave and Tamara for the graphic (Originally found at CopBlock Facebook page)

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

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 Amazon.com 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 http://www.dcdave.com/article4/041103.htm.  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

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Nihilistic Gnostic

 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior Of All Men, and especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things.

~ Paul (1 TIM 4:9)

I have been asked if I am a Christian.

I suppose that technically the answer would be yes. But I ain’t no ordinary Christian and many people, including my own mother, have said that my beliefs would take me straight to hell (and lead anyone I share my thoughts with to the fiery pit with me). As a matter of fact, I have faced the ire of more religious Christians, than anyone else I ever encountered, including the belittling atheists.

Why?

Because my message is one that doesn’t fit the brainwashing they have endured.

If I were forced to label myself it would be a Universalist or Deist or maybe even Gnostic.

I shared this with John Friend once after I heard him promoting the Christian Identity movement being the only rational belief “that makes sense”. He has listened to the CI preachers who use words like “Universalism” and turned that word into a “bad” word. And if he would have read the words I shared with him, he may have a slightly different understanding of the word. It means that Jesus is all inclusive in His purpose. Yes, even atheists, jews, and CI people are included. Everyone in. No one out. (Kinda like a Single Payer system of salvation)

That is virtually impossible for literalists (believers or not) to get a grasp of. It brings about anger from the self-professed chosen ones of Christendom and turns the CI message on its head (which, really, the CI message is simply trying to be Jew-Lites just like the Christian Zionists’ goal). It may be worse with CI, because they claim to be the ones written about in the OT (the Israelites), who are the most vicious, mass-murdering sect in all of the Bible. Good on you, dumbasses.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men–the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle–I am telling the truth, I am not lying–and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

~Paul (1 TIM 2:1)

Atheists are pretty bad. People like ZCF are violently anti-Christian (anti any religion). There are several people in the truth movement that are atheistic and belittle people of faith and belief. Many times, these people, who would agree with me on many other issues, call me names without having an inkling of an idea what my beliefs are. They are so turned off by their brainwashing (understandably so) that they could never embrace what they know of Christianity. Just so you know, I feel exactly the same way. And that is why I never argue with them during their rants.

You see, whether they know it or not, they were brainwashed with the same literalist view that has been foisted upon mankind by Jews and their minions and understandably, they recoil. The sad thing is that they think all Christians believe that way. They think everyone is a Calvinist (God decides who goes to hell) or maybe an Arminian (we have free choice to go to hell). It is inconceivable to me that a loving God could consign his very own to endless torture. Atheists feel this and recoil, but Christians fall all over themselves trying to reconcile these untenable positions with all sorts of mumbo jumbo, which just drives many people away.

Even the most dense person will struggle with such a dichotomy. Smart people have an impossible time.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

~JN 3:16,17

Think about how many times you have seen or heard verse 16 above, but how seldom you hear the very next verse. And when you do, they go out of their way to minimize what is meant by the word “world”.

I have spent hundreds of hours studying the Bible and original languages. Years of my life spent trying to understand this illogical fantasy. I found that the Bible has truly been manipulated. Word meanings purposefully changed to fit a theology. Several very different words are translated into the same one, but upon further investigation, these words have their own significant meanings. All to bolster a particular belief to keep mankind in fear and controlled. For instance:

 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

~JN 12:30-32

That word translated into “draw” (as if it is a wooing or a persuasive attempt to bring people close) is helkuo. If you do a search on that word meaning, you find that EVERY OTHER time it is used (6 or 7 more times) it is a forced action (like drawing a sword from a scabbard, dragging a net full of fish up onto the dry ground, or dragging Paul from a prison cell, etc). Do I need to point out that one does not woo a sword out of the scabbard or gently draw a prisoner from his cell.

See here.

There are plenty more examples such as this, where word meanings were changed for a theology.

But that wasn’t until three to four hundred years after Jesus died (if He actually was a man).

I shared some of this before. This new understanding has made it possible that I can put down my “god sledge hammer” and not worry about foolishly trying to “draw” people into being “saved” or “accepting Christ”. You see, to me, this is all a spiritual thing. Even if I were to share my testimony with you, there is nothing that I can say or do that will make any spiritual connection for you. That spiritual connection comes from elsewhere:

Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

~Paul (1CO 12:1-3)

As a matter of fact, Paul even said that preaching was foolishness (altho he had no real choice in the matter). But Paul never beat anyone over the head with hell and damnation. As a matter of fact, he said that hell lost… that it is done away with… that Jesus took the keys and was victorious (no matter what someone’s definition of what hell is, it is not successful).

But then again, Paul knew that hell had nothing whatsoever to do with unending punishment and torture. The Gnostics knew this and more. They felt that it is all spiritual. That “knowing Jesus” is really knowing yourself. That is what the “personal relationship” thing should be all about.

As for the literalists, I have said many times that the first thing a Christian should do is throw out the entire Old testament. And my goodness how that tears the literalistic Christian a new one. Why would I even try to understand this maniac God illuminated in that portion, especially when that particular God is the God of the Jew. That God is insane. He commands his followers to kill by the thousands; to rape little girls and take them for concubine; to totally wipe out entire cities, peoples and their animals.

That God has mercies that last forever, yet He will burn your ass for all eternity. His love endures forever, except when He gets pissed and assigns you to the “lake of fire” (just a word study on that phrase would give a whole new meaning to people).

I think that it is evident that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are totally different characters with opposite characteristics.

Every Christian has to try to explain the OT God and then, also be able to express how “God is Love” (NT) and how one must juggle the old God with the new God Jesus spoke of. Its a stinking mess that is impossible. And it drives people away.

We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

~1JN 4:13

Both Christians and atheists seem to believe that Jesus was a Jew, so the die hard literalist worships the Jew and their “chosen” status. But Jesus wasn’t from Judea (which is what the original word meant at the time). It had nothing to do with our brainwashed preconceived notion of what a “jew” is. It was simply pointing to a geographic area. He was from Galilee.

Being a “Jew” is a relatively recent concept (in the way Jews have claimed ownership of that word). When people in the Bible spoke of this, they weren’t separating a religious group from another, they were simply talking about where these people came from. So, a Khazar is no jew for they aren’t from Judea. The vast majority of the “jews” have nothing, whatsoever, to do with a lineage of people from Judea. Its all a bait and switch. And dumb old Gentiles believe them and worship them over this lie.

From a literalist point of view, one has to take the time to reread the Bible understanding what words really meant (or read the very few versions that did not make the word meaning changes). There aren’t many because the publishing houses are owned by Jews and or brainwashed literalists, so good luck with that.

What most people think of is all the crap they hear from Hagee and other fools who lie and deceive. They can never see a Jesus that is victorious in his purpose (being “Savior of the World” and the “Savior of all men”). As a matter of fact, their Jesus (and God) are quite ineffectual and weak. They are violently retributive after having set up mankind to fail. They are unable to save all even though it is evident that this was the purpose to begin with.

Well, no matter what the straight poop is about this, I am confident in saying that the standard belief paradigm is wrong and at least, my thinking puts the God of Jesus in a different light. One of hope. One of victory. One that DOES actually get what he so desires.

You know, like a God.

 

h/t zen @ just wondering

Additional Reading:

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/bmans-sabbath-watch-the-ineffectual-jesus-of-christendom/

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/bmans-sabbath-watch-the-hell-lie/

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/jew-lites-the-destruction-of-america/

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/jewish-influence-in-america/

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Kathleen Willey Dissects Hillary Clinton

Kathleen Willey Dissects Hillary Clinton

Hillary_6

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.

polls_clinton_4824_420075_answer_2_xlarge

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:

juanita

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

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Nancy VS Nancy

I kept waiting for her head to explode…

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Crazy Uncle Michael


Crazy Uncle Michael

Crazy Uncle Michael’s come to our place to stay
To help us with the chores, but he’s mainly in the way.
He’s ‘sposed to keep the fences fixed and furrin’ things outside,
But he complained how hard it was before he even tried.
Still there’s somethin’ that he’s good at that us young ‘uns found:
When it reaches time for bed, we all gather ’round
A-list’nin’ to the spooky things that Michael tells about,
An’ Osama’s gonna git you
Ef you
Don’t
Watch
Out!

He tol’ us when he come that one of his specialties
Was makin’ preparations for the biggest emergencies,
But then we had a fearsome storm, and forgettin’ what he said,
Even after it had passed, he cowered ‘neath a bed.
Talkin’, after all, was the one thing he did well,
And he always finds an audience after night has fell.
We can’t resist the scary stories that he parcels out,
An’ Osama’s gonna git you
Ef you
Don’t
Watch
Out!

Michael loves to scarify and seldom to enlighten us,
And just to show his face is all he ever needs to frighten us.
With eyes that’s sunk real deep into a little narrow head,
Ef he didn’t move his mouth you’d think that he was dead.
But he sure does talk at night. He almost casts a spell
With a voice and with a look like somethin’ out of hell.
He makes it sound so awful real that we have little doubt
That Osama’s gonna git us
Ef we
Don’t
Watch
Out!

There’s somethin’ truly strange that I heard the other day:
Michael really ain’t our uncle, but what they wouldn’t say.
He’s got Daddy thinkin’ that he’s deeply in his debt
For somethin’ really monsterous that Michael can’t forget.
It’s ’bout a thing he says that happened long ago,
And no matter what we pay, he says we’ll always owe.
And that is what this warning’s always been about:
That Osama’s going to get us
If we
Don’t
Watch
Out.

David Martin

Let us hope James Whitcomb Riley will not be too greatly disturbed in his grave for the liberties that I have taken with his classic, “Little Orphant Annie” (which was also the inspiration for the comic strip, Little Orphan Annie.).

(updated with permission of the author)

Original poem found here:

http://www.dcdave.com/poet14/071022.htm

Video by BuelahMan

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/

I have featured this scumbag here before. I also previously featured DC Dave’s article on the devil’s son here.

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Richard Noggin’ Watch: Gerald Celente

trend2014

If you ain’t got the nuts to call out the real culprits, then you are the enemy. Period. Its one thing to be ignorant, we have all been there and are still learning, but the alternative media “power players” have no excuse. What is so glaringly obvious to many of us, should be obvious to minstrels such as Celente. But somehow, the guy that calls all the trends can’t seem to trend the most conspicuous facts that confront us.

 

The “White Shoe Boys”

Its time to start up the Richard Noggin Watch series again. But I think we should be a bit more focused. Its time to point out the ass-kissing Jew sycophants for their protection of the clan’s worst offenders of humanity. Today, Bro Nat featured Gerald Celente at his blog, showing what a worthless bag of wind he and his “Trends Journal” is.

GeraldandAlex

Rabbis Jonestein and Celenteberg

 

Now, if you are “in the know” about Jews and what they are doing, you probably know what a shill and liar Gerald is. But if you are a redneck just beginning to catch the wave, you may find some things he talks about interesting, much like many rednecks find the blowhard, Alex Jones’ BS interesting. But what do these two deflectors of truth have in common? They both protect the Jews. For profit and maybe self-protection against their assaults on their money-making schemes (as “Max” in Bro Nat’s comment section put it):

I know Gerald as an acquaintance, we have the same friends.

What he says publically and what he says personally are two different things.

Yes he is being politically correct. But yes, you are right Brother Nathanael.

You and I know that once you say the Jew word, you will become a target. They will burn your house down, they will kill you and your family. He would lose every and any invite in broadcast media.

Alex Jones probably wouldnt even have him on. They would set out to ruin him in every which way.

You see how an acquaintance explains Gerald’s lies and protection of the Jew. Does it cause you to consider a response for Max, like it did me?

@ Max:

So, what you are telling us is that Gerald Celente is a liar by omission, made worse by his money making due to this flim-flam.

Let’s get right down to the nut-cuttin’:

Anyone, at this point, that “knows” the truth and doesn’t say it is the enemy, or [is] doing the enemy’s bidding for profit.

If what you say is true, every person in the know needs to alienate the man, point out what a shill/liar he is for Jew money or protection, and continue to remind the world what the real problem is: the Jew.

It is why I never relate anything from Gerald any more. He is just another Italian Alex Jones. Worthless liar and Jew protector and abettor.

So, I appreciate Bro Nat’s post (which you should read for yourself) and I plan to do what I say needs to be done: point out the kow-towing Richard Noggins for the lies and deception they continue to push on a gullible, but suspecting public.

Stop protecting the Jew, Gerald. Grow some balls. If you truly want to help America, lying only contributes to the demise. The sad fact is that you must know this, but still perpetrate the deed for your masters. You scumbag.

Unfortunately, it is worse than what I’ve already shown. Apparently (according to another Bro Nat commenter’s directive to listen to a Rense interview), Celente admitted that he surrounds himself with Jews and even concedes that he loves the Jewish ladies (go to the 3:42 mark):

Show Notes:
Who is Gerald Celente (Bio)
The Jews are Behind Gerald Celente
75% of Staff Are Jewish
-Top Jews on Staff:

Mitchell Skolnick
Laura Martin
Alex Silverman
Elded Benary (Was/Is in Israeli Defense Forces IDF)

Celente Brags about dating Jewish Chicks (last 3 in a row)
Celente dominates internet alternative media

So, any of you defenders of Celente just STFU. He is a plant; a ringer for the Jew (just like Alex Jones). Get over the mealy mouthed little liar and call him out.

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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 WordPress.com

Pot Possession’s Epiphany Generator

I told you about the stellar hypocrite, Rep Steve Katz (surprise! A Jew) last March. He represents the Hudson Valley in New York. Last year he was arrested for marijuana possession after he voted against a medical marijuana bill and I pointed out what a dissembler he was (and this is besides the fact that his lawyer was able to have the charge reduced to a parking ticket). Imagine that as you consider that person you know that languishes in jail for simple possession and can’t afford a lawyer.

hypocrite

He claims that he was simply voting for what he thought the voters wanted (and of course, all these politicians ALWAYS vote for what their electors desire; like the blatant coverup of the real 911 culprits, a usurious monetary system, illegal wars, boycotts that starve little foreign children, indefinite detention, torture, protecting Afghan poppy fields and bringing the heroin here to sell to our own people, free trade agreements, murder of US citizens by our government/president, illegal surveillance and informational spying, FEMA camps, groping our private parts at airports/malls/and the roadways, coverups of presidential murders, theft of Social Security and the dismantling of the social services, tax increases, congressional pay increases, support of dual Israeli citizens in high positions of government, backing mercenaries against imagined evil enemies, Homeland Security and the police state, menorahs at the Whitehouse but never a cross or Christian symbolism, more and more and MORE money to Israel, even further subservience to Jewish control, and all the other laws that we, as US citizens desire so much like the Noahide laws and any other way to give Jews more control of this country). Should I go on?

It is obvious that Steve Katz truly wanted to do his constituency’s bidding.

Uh, except… The day after that vote that reflected his constituents’ wishes, he told his wife:

‘Next year, I really don’t care. I’m voting for medical marijuana because that’s what I believe in and I’m not comfortable with what happened.’

Gosh, Steve. In reality, you really DIDN’T care what your constituents wanted, after all?

You phony.

 

“An Epiphany”

Katz said that the possession ticket was an epiphany:

“You’re turning me into a criminal? You got to be kidding.”

What is it about getting arrested for stupid drug laws that becomes an epiphany for people? Especially the hypocrites in government positions? Are these people so stupid or ignorant that they don’t see the travesty of these laws in the first place? Not according to Katz.

He said he knew all along that marijuana legalization was a:

“core belief from the time I was in college and Rockefeller was the Governor.”

Yet, he spent years with his mouth shut, misleading his voters into thinking he believed something totally different.

Us rednecks call that LYING. A fraud. A sham. A fake.

Katz went on to describe his friends which are professionals (doctors, lawyers, and business men) and “pillars of the community”, no less, which all smoke the evil weed and makes the connection of how stupid the laws he endorsed by voting AGAINST legalizing for medical reasons by saying:

“We’re all criminals? This is ridiculous”

Do I have to point out that most of these people are probably quite well-to-do and can likely minimize their LAW BREAKING into a “parking ticket” in the same way Katz did, unlike the poor rednecks I know who have suffered because they don’t have money?

He went further and said that the arrest:

“didn’t change anything other than make me decide that I was going to not only be a champion for medical marijuana, and for its total legalization, I was going to become part of the wave that’s building in the industry itself. “It’s a great feeling. It’s very liberating.”

AHA! The money quote

Katz

The Next Great American Industry

 You see, Katz is a rich Jew and now has become an investor in the market and will invest up to $10M. He has teamed up with a group who has dollar signs floating in front of their eyes.

What we have here is even more greed and money grubbing, when the truth is that the stuff should simply be legal. Period. There should not be a “market” on a weed that can grow virtually anywhere and by anyone with just a little knowledge. No, but the Jews (and others) see the $ and want to control it.

The only “epiphany Katz has is that he loves money and wants MORE of it.

For those of you who want to understand how cannabis works with the human Endocannabinoid system (which every human being has, with receptors God gave us for this miracle medicine) to heal cancers and many other ailments, you can spend some time at Cannabis Journal.

h/t Smellthetruth

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 WordPress.com