Looking For Somebody To Bomb


DC Dave’s parody based off of Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love”

http://www.dcdave.com/poet15/140831.htm

When the truth is found
To be lies
No gas attack
By Assad’s guys

(chorus)
Don’t you want somebody to bomb
Don’t you need somebody to bomb
Wouldn’t you love somebody to bomb
You better find somebody to bomb

Now the Afghan gambit’s
Almost been played
And the golden eggs
Have all been laid

Repeat chorus

Hey look, there’s ISIS
No it’s not Assad
Yeah, but with your head, baby
You can give the nod

Repeat chorus

Bombs are falling
At your puppet’s request
Killing from the air, baby
Is what you do the best

Repeat chorus

Video and singing 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

Ooooo, I Need A Dirty Woman

Here is to you, Vicky “Nudelman” Nuland

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

Parade Magazine’s Latest Bunkum, on 9/11

Parade Magazine’s Latest Bunkum, on 9/11

Parade of Lies, Part 8

by DC Dave

The most recent article in this series, “Parade Magazine in Full Propaganda Mode,” was about that pervasive propaganda organ’s writing on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Now, just a few days before the thirteenth anniversary of the 9/11 incident, we have come full circle. Here is the exchange on November 4, 2001, trumping up an excuse for the invasion of Iraq in Walter Scott’s Personality Parade that caused me to first pay attention to this insidious little publication:

Q. Before our war on terrorists began, how well did Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the world’s top terrorists, get along? -C. Barnes, San Antonio, Texas

A. Not well at all, but they worked together on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Intelligence sources tell us Saddam encouraged attacks on U.S. targets because he harbors a deep resentment against George H. W. Bush, who created the coalition that defeated Iraq in the Gulf War. Our sources say Saddam figured the most effective way to punish the former President was to hurt his son, who now occupies the White House. It was a massive miscalculation. The recent outpouring of patriotic fervor pushed George W. Bush’s popularity rating to more than 90%.

STpennye15_28_1_1554343540

Maj. Heather Penney, and her father Col. John Penney, both pilots. Maj. Penny flew an F-16 on Sept. 11, 2001, that was destined to intercept and possibly bring down Flight 93. Penny Family Photo

Now they’re at it again. Four days before the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, they’re trying to keep the flame of martial fervor burning by recycling The Washington Post’s 10th anniversary “scoop” about the would-be heroic female National Guard fighter pilot at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base, Heather “Lucky” Penney, who took to the air on September 11, 2001, fully prepared to make a 140907-American-Stories-Heather-Penney-vtrmartyr of herself for her country. In the print edition of the slender little rag, accompanied by the same photo of the flags at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that they have on their web site, the subtitle of the story is, “On 9/11, F-16 pilot Heather Penney was prepared to complete an unthinkable mission: take down United Flight 93.” The title is a quote from Penney, herself, that echoes the official story line that the passengers actually took over the flight, resulting in its crashing into the ground about midway between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, “Because of What They Did, We Didn’t Have to.”

Bill Hewitt, interviewing for Parade, gets this response from Penney concerning the events of September 11, 2001

After the Pentagon was hit, the Secret Service called and ordered us to get airborne. We had an idea there was another aircraft coming toward Washington. [Editor’s note: The fourth hijacked plane, Flight 93, was believed to be headed to the White House or the Capitol.] Because we’d just returned from a training mission in Nevada, there weren’t any missiles or bombs or high-explosive bullets on the airplanes, and it was going to be a while before the weapons people could get the missiles built up. My commander, Col. Marc “Sass” Sasseville, looked at me and said, “Lucky, you’re with me.”

Uh, right. I know we are supposed to believe that the complicated, well-nigh impossible scheme of 19 poorly trained jihadists miraculously succeeded because our designated defenders were a bunch of stumblebums (and Osama bin Laden somehow knew that they would be), but was it really this bad? What is the Secret Service, which was under the U.S. Department of the Treasury at the time, doing giving orders to some unprepared Air National Guard jet jockeys at the local air base, and how did the Secret Service know what Penney’s superiors in the Air Force didn’t know?

A Cacophony of Voices

Perhaps she added this embellishment to the original Post story because Hugh Turley had written a follow-up article in which he reminded the Post reporter, Steve Hendrix, that according to the official 9/11 Report, the Air Force didn’t know about Flight 93 until after it had crashed. This is from his earlier September 2009 Hyattsville Life and Times article, “The Case of Lt. Kuczynski”:

The 9/11 Commission Report…says flatly that the military was not aware of United 93 until it crashed.  The official timeline has FAA headquarters knowing that United 93 was hijacked by 9:34, but not telling NEADS [North East Air Defense Sector] of the hijacking until 10:07, after the plane had crashed at 10:03 in Pennsylvania.

The Report clearly states, “…[n]o one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93.  Nor did any manager at FAA headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93 to the military.”

The first NEADS knew about it, according to the report, was at 10:07 a.m., when a call came in from the military liaison at Cleveland Center.  “The NEADS air defenders never located the flight or followed it on their radar scopes,” it goes on.  “The flight had already crashed by the time the military learned it was hijacked.”

Both Penney and the 9/11 Commission Report, furthermore, are out of step with a very early CBS News report on September 16, 2001:

As the fourth hijacked plane was over Pennsylvania, seemingly headed for Washington, military commanders, the FAA, and White House officials were on a conference call discussing options.

At the time, there were two F-16s armed with air-to-air missiles within 60 miles of Flight 93. But the fighters were still out of missile range when the jetliner crashed, sources said.

No decision had to be made, but administration officials say that, had the jetliner continued toward Washington, the fighter jets would have shot it down. The rationale, say the sources, was that the government was willing to “kill 100 to save a thousand”.

Assuming that that early report is accurate, those two fully armed fighter jets would have easily been within range of Flight 93 long before Penney and company would have had to have performed their suicidal ramming stunt. The accuracy of that report is further buttressed by Turley’s 2009 article:

On the first anniversary of the crash, Brigadier General Montague Winfield told ABC News that the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center “received the report from the FAA that Flight 93 had turned off its transponder, had turned, and was now heading towards Washington,” adding, “The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93.”

The documentation for that assertion can be found here. Turley reports further, drawing from the Air Force’s official history of the day, “Air War Over America,” published by Tyndall Air Force Base:

NEADS…Commander Robert Marr reported that around 9:36, when it changed direction, while it is still flying west, United 93 was being monitored.  NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold agreed, saying, “We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area.”

Furthermore, Arnold, testified to the 9/11 Commission that he placed fighters over DC, “to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way.”

Even if you take the would-be heroine Penney at her word that she and her commander were all primed and ready to pay the ultimate price for their country, there was apparently not the slightest need for their heroism. The fighters that General Arnold speaks of were the ones that arrived after the Pentagon explosions: “We launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way.”

So take your choice. There was either a superfluity of fully armed fighter jets bearing down on the doomed flight from the north and already over Washington, having come from the south, as the military authorities tell us; the Air Force was in the dark about Flight 93 until after it had crashed, according to the 9/11 Commission; or the only thing that stood between the commandeered plane and our politicians in the White House or the Capitol Building were our own pair of suicide pilots in the DC Air National Guard, in the version spun by The Washington Post and Parade magazine. They really do seem to be a bunch of stumblebums when it comes to getting their stories straight.

The Case of Lt. Kuczynski

kuczynski_a2Trumping them all, to my mind, is Air Force Lieutenant Anthony Kuczynski with the story that he told to the alumni magazine of his alma mater, St. Thomas University in St. Paul, Minnesota. “I was given direct orders to shoot down the airliner,” he said. To me, that has the ring of truth because he was speaking out of turn. He didn’t realize that he was speaking out of turn, because, after all, like the government and the press, he was repeating the official story that, in the end, his orders didn’t matter because the passengers took control of the airplane and caused it to crash into the ground. But apparently he got too close to the truth, because, with the exception of one columnist at the free monthly Hyattsville (MD) Life and Times, the press has ignored his revelations.  He is now a Lieutenant Colonel at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

To the dispassionate observer, it looks for all the world like orders to shoot down the plane were carried out. I will admit that I am theorizing here, but the theory that seems to fit the known facts best is that, indeed, control of Flight 93 had been regained, but it had been regained by the pilots from its remote-control takeover. That’s why it had to be shot down. It is a great deal more believable than that a fully intact airliner made the hole in the ground near Shanksville, PA, and produced debris scattered miles apart and that passengers made cell phone calls while out of the range of cell phone towers.

debrisfields

And which of those two Air Force pilots appears most believable, the one who uses the likes of Parade magazine and The Washington Post as her megaphone and now has an important position with the nation’s largest military contractor, or an active duty Air Force flier with no apparent axe to grind? Which of the two has the greater incentive to continue to stoke the martial fires and to keep us at war?

David Martin

September 10, 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

PBS Lies for FDR over Allegations by Whittaker Chambers

PBS Lies for FDR over Allegations by Whittaker Chambers

by DC Dave

It’s never too late to learn something new. The following article, posted in January of 2006, shows the genesis of my discoveries about the massive infiltration of the Franklin Roosevelt government by agents of the Soviet Union.

Having already written the first three parts of “Who Killed James Forrestal?” I was already a good deal further up the learning curve on 20th century history than the average person, but I didn’t know how little I knew until I followed up on the recommendation of an online contact and read Witness by Whittaker Chambers. The research sparked by Witness then led to my “FDR Winked as Soviet Espionage” and a number of other articles.

One intriguing discovery I have made is that the generally leftist Public Broadcasting System is not alone in covering up Franklin Roosevelt’s apparent treason. From the 2013 addendum to the “FDR Winked” article one can see that a number of prominent putative conservative anti-communists have lied for Roosevelt—though not for Alger Hiss—in exactly the same way that PBS has.

David Martin

September 5, 2014

 

Below is an exchange that I had on alt.history on Usenet during the first week of January 2006.  I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Robert Cohen for responding to my repeated postings.  His responses prompted me to do additional research and led me to the discovery, recounted in entry #7 below, that the Public Broadcasting System has written apparent untruths that would tend to absolve President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of responsibility for protecting a Soviet spy ring that operated in the highest reaches of his administration for many years.

 

1.  DC Dave

Jan 1, 10:15 am

Subject: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

I have just finished reading Whittaker Chambers’ 1952 memoir, 
Witness, for the first time, and here are a few of my observations:

The book certainly establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alger 
Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and company were active Communists dealing 
with very important matters in the upper reaches of the U.S. 
government. I think that I already knew that from my general reading, 
and I believe that that is now pretty much the consensus of accepted 
history as it is taught in our colleges, although it might be 
downplayed and glossed over for the most part. What is particularly 
glossed over is that these people were simply traitorous espionage 
agents little different from the Rosenbergs or Kim Philby.

What I did not know at all, and what I consider to be the really big 
news of the book, was that Whittaker Chambers had gone to Franklin 
Roosevelt’s internal security chief, Adolph Berle, some eight years 
before he appeared before the House committee that Richard Nixon was on 
and had told him pretty much the same story at that time. Amazingly, 
FDR had blown the whole thing off, and, clearly, nothing would have 
ever been done had it been left up to the Democratically controlled 
executive branch of the government. I get the distinct impression that 
FDR’s brush-off was not a consequence of his simply not believing 
Chambers. It appears that the FBI already had some strong indications 
of the ongoing treason and had relayed it to Berle. Rather, it appears 
that Roosevelt acted with malice aforethought, and was thus complicit 
in the treason.

I think that this revelation in the book has been little publicized for 
fairly obvious reasons. It raises fundamental questions as to who has 
been running our government and to what ends. It also makes the 
observation of James Forrestal to newly-elected Senator Joseph 
McCarthy, as quoted in Cornell Simpson’s, The Death of James  Forrestal, look all the better:

“Consistency never has been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who 
have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they 
would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”

Also, I learned a lot in Witness about the means by which the 
Communists compartmentalized their covert operations, as all good 
covert operations must. Chambers’ window upon the penetration of 
the country by the Communists, therefore, was very limited. The 
likelihood that there were other spy nests within the government or 
other power nodes in the country that Chambers would have had no way of 
knowing about is probably pretty high. One must wonder whatever 
became of them.

As worldly-wise as Chambers had become from all his experiences, he 
seems curiously naïve in some ways, though. It is not just the press 
and the historians who have made too little of FDR’s guilty knowledge 
of treason at his elbow, Chambers, himself seems to make too little of 
it in his book. Toward the end he sings the praises of the FBI when 
they are finally put to work on his side and against Hiss and company. 
He appears to have forgotten that they, whose job it is to prevent such 
things, were nowhere to be found when the Hiss crowd, and who knows how 
many others, were carrying out there treason for many years after Chambers 
had made FDR aware of it.

Maybe it can be blamed on his editors, but Chambers seems not to have 
come away from his experience questioning who really rules us and for
 what purpose. Turning to religion, as he does, may be the right thing 
to do, but he treats it almost as an end in itself in dealing with our 
political landscape. It might provide you with a pretty good compass, 
but you’re still going to need a map.

 

2. Robert Cohen

Jan 1, 4:18 pm

re: Whittaker Chambers

I read the Amazon write-ups about WITNESS to 
refresh my history of the era, which always interests me.

I had off ‘n on 
subscribed to NATIONAL REVIEW in the 1970s and 1980s, and Wm F. 
Buckley, Jr. is very pro–Chambers, continually defending him against 
Hiss and the Democrats/left-liberals.

FDR was not uncontroversial nor was HST. They were both the bug-a-boos 
of the right of 1930s, 1940s and 1950s:

“FDR has the syph, and Truman is part of the Pendergast machine.”

The nasty, damning charges of being pro-Communist against Democrats are standard operating 
accusations; and also the implications of the fairly recent release of Verona papers of the KGB 
do not let Hiss, the Rosenbergs nor FDR’s assistant Harry Dexter White off the hook.

Pat Buchanan is also recently defending American Firsters’ pov: The 
U.S. should’ve been neutral, and let the NAZIs win (or whatever) 
is his inference. Am I mis-stating Buchanan’s book–I did not read it, 
only excerpts and reviews.

No matter the instigation of the Churchillian 
”Cold War,” the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, the Democrats & even moderate 
President Eisenhower will forever be accused by the American right of 
pandering/consorting/soft-dealing with the Commies: The U.S. shoulda 
defeated/nuked ‘em early-on, the 
right apparently holds:

The Right still says: The “Democrats lost China.” 

I suppose that some Democrats, some GOP moderates and 
left-liberalism will thus be forever suspect in the rightwing’s 
perception.

 

3. DC Dave

Jan 1, 10:54 pm

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

I’m trying to look past the left vs. right aspects of this episode. 
Whittaker Chambers, a defector from the Communist underground, brought 
to Roosevelt very solid evidence that he was surrounded by a nest of 
spies for Stalin’s Soviet Union, and FDR, through Adolph Berle, blew 
him off. When you add that to the known facts about FDR’s extremely 
pro-Soviet foreign policy what you get is a very strong inference that 
Roosevelt, himself, was guilty of treason.

I am writing this as a born and raised Democrat whose father was such a 
Roosevelt admirer that he named his youngest son Franklin D. My 
father’s heart might have been in the right place, but like most people 
he didn’t read very much and what he read he did not read critically, 
and also, like most people, he tended to think tribally in “us” vs. 
”them” terms. As I recall, there was never any doubt in his mind that 
Alger Hiss was innocent, because Hiss was one of “us.”

 

4. Robert Cohen

Jan 2, 9:53 am

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

I skimmed thru this article about FDR: It’s fascinating–especially if 
true (w/o substantial distortion).

The author holds: FDR wasn’t naive about intelligence/spying. FDR was 
very much interested in intelligence from the onset of his 
governmental-political career.

If/when I find something that exculpates/indicts FDR regarding 
allegation/idea of an “agent/spy of USSR,” I’ll throw it at ya for 
comment/rebuttal. 

Meanwhile, the article: 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stafford-roosevelt.html 

 

5. DC Dave

Jan 2, 11:14 am

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

The New York Times article referenced here agrees completely with the 
charge made by Chambers in Witness. Here is the key NY Times quote:

Ironically, Soviet espionage was already at work in America. But 
Roosevelt, like most others, misunderstood the threat. This was seen in 
the case of Whitaker Chambers.

A journalist, Chambers was a courier and contact in Washington for 
Soviet intelligence. In 1938 he recanted his allegiance to Moscow, and 
after hiding for several months to escape Stalin’s assassins re-emerged 
as a writer for Time magazine. Shocked by the brutal cynicism of 
Stalin’s pact with Hitler in August 1939, he told his story to Adolf 
Berle, Roosevelt’s international security adviser in the State 
Department, and also pointed the finger at more than thirty Communist 
agents at work in the federal government, including the senior State 
Department official Alger Hiss. Berle told neither his department nor 
the FBI, but did, according to one source, pass the intelligence on to 
Roosevelt. But the President merely `scoffed at the charge’. He was 
incredulous that there could be a Soviet espionage ring in his 
administration; to him Communists were blue-collar trade union 
militants, not suave representatives of the east coast establishment. 
Gentlemen like Hiss could simply not be traitors. As a result, no 
counter-intelligence programme for identifying Communist agents in the 
federal government was put in place.

Whatever his motivation, FDR would have to be regarded as criminally 
negligent, at the very least, in his disregard of the report by 
Chambers. I think that it was worse than negligence, and the fact that 
so little is made of this reaction by Roosevelt in the 
secret-power-protecting press and the toady history establishment 
strengthens my suspicion.

The fact that The New York Times, itself, would go along with Chambers’ 
version of the story on this initial stifling of any proper Soviet spy 
investigation by FDR is significant. This is the newspaper that gave 
us the extraordinarily influential Stalin propagandist, Walter Duranty, 
after all. It is 
completely in character that The Times would make excuses for Roosevelt 
for what appears to me to be complicity in treason, rather than holding 
him to account.

 

6. Robert Cohen

Jan 2, 4:55 pm

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

As I understand the accusation: 

The NY TIMES reported that Berle, FDR’s intelligence assistant, 
informed FDR that 30 Soviet agents were then operating/participating in 
his administration according to informant Whittaker Chambers circa 
1939. 

 FDR reportedly scoffs.

My questions: 

Did Berle tell/refer-to FBI/U.S. military of Chambers’ information (?).

Whose word/testimony are we supposed to trust as the source of the 
accusation: Berle? Chambers? J.E. Hoover? Stimson?/Knox?

Is it possible Chambers lies/exaggerates/distorts about his 
conversation(s) with Berle?

Chambers’ treason/espionage accusation against Alger Hiss circa 1948 is 
seemingly true; while the scoff-conversation/administration-inaction 
has never been verified/proven (?).

 

7. DC Dave

Jan 3, 9:29 pm

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

First, let’s look again at what the generally leftist, FDR-defending 
New York Times said in that article you found:

Berle told neither his department nor the FBI, but did, according to 
one source, pass the intelligence on to Roosevelt. But the President 
merely `scoffed at the charge’. He was incredulous that there could be 
a Soviet espionage ring in his administration; to him Communists were 
blue-collar trade union militants, not suave representatives of the 
east coast establishment. Gentlemen like Hiss could simply not be 
traitors. As a result, no counter-intelligence programme for 
identifying Communist agents in the federal government was put in 
place.

They say, “according to one source,” and they put “scoffed at the 
charge,” in quotes as though they are quoting that source directly. 
That source is clearly not Chambers’ book, Witness, because Witness 
doesn’t use those words. Here’s the Witness quote:

But nothing at all happened. Weeks passed into months. I went about 
my work at Time. Then, one day, I am no longer certain just when, I 
met a dejected [Isaac Don] Levine. (Levine had been present at the 
Berle meeting. ed.) Adolf Berle, said Levine, had taken my information 
to the President at once. The President had laughed. When Berle was 
insistent, he had been told in words which it is necessary to 
paraphrase, to ‘go jump in a lake.’

Next we have Francis P. Sempa writing at 
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_07-09/sempa_chambers/sempa_chambers.html

Two years after his break with communism, Chambers attempted to warn 
the Roosevelt Administration about communist infiltration of the 
government (the same information that he revealed to HUAC in 1948). 
Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle ‘ brought Chambers’ 
information directly to Roosevelt, but the president refused to believe 
it. FDR’s response to Chambers’ information typified his 
administration’s lax attitude about the threat of communist subversion.

Then there’s the 1997 Sam Tanenhaus biography of Chambers, on pages 
203 and 204:

Nothing had come, after all, of his meeting with Berle in 1939.

It was not Berle’s fault. The official had taken Chambers’s story to 
the White House, to no effect. And Don Levine had made every effort to 
reach the president, telling the Chambers story to every contact he 
knew. One of Levine’s recruits, columnist Walter Winchell, had gone 
directly to FDR but had been rebuffed. “I don’t want to hear another 
thing about it!” Roosevelt had said angrily, jabbing a finger at the 
columnist. “It isn’t true.”

I think that leaves little doubt as to where the blame lies for the 
treasonous failure to get this nest of spies out of the government.

But wouldn’t you know, the usual suspects are still covering up for 
FDR. Check out what the Public Broadcasting System has to say on its 
oh-so-authoritative NOVA site:

In the late 1930s Hiss was a key State Department official during the 
formative years of the United Nations. He eventually served as 
Secretary General at the 1945 San Francisco meeting at which the U.N. 
was founded. In 1939, however, Whitaker Chambers, a former member of 
the U.S. Communist Party, told Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle 
that Hiss was a communist. Berle, under whom Hiss worked, scoffed at 
the charge.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_hiss.html 

There’s nary a hint in their article of the sorry role played by their 
fair-haired hero in the Oval Office. They have a feedback tab on their 
site and I have asked them for the source of their information, but I 
don’t think that we should hold our breath for a response. It’s too 
bad that quite a few people actually believe what they see on Public 
Television.

 

8. Robert Cohen

Jan 4, 9:46 am

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

I must hereby concede the D.C. Dave point/Chambers’ criticism against 
FDR/the FDR Administration, as it seems valid, substantive, and has 
been subsequently very consequential.

Momentous history is, as I perceive it:

FDR was attacked by both the Right and the Left throughout his 4 terms.

The Depression years held potential for an extreme change of 
government, whether of a Huey Kingfish Long and/or of a Father Coughlin 
and/or of a Norman Thomas and/or of an Earl Browder, et al.

An “anti mentality” had knocked-out the Catholic NY Governor Al Smith’s 
presidential Democrat candidacy circa 1928.

Our country’s politics reflects our overall society’s accords/discords/dynamics:

There are 4 or 5 Catholics serving today on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Literary, intellectual, academic, and artistic types were joiners of 
idealistic & leftist causes, including Communist influenced groups or 
front groups.

It seemingly was normative in the 1930 U.S. to be associated with Communists.

Stalin’s USSR took advantage of the situation, and implanted agents/spies.

There were many sympathizers who weren’t conscious KGB “spies.

“

Perhaps FDR was indeed naive and overly defensive, despite that he did 
know much about intelligence/spy machinations as the NYT article 
reports.

Ernest Hemingway and The Abraham Lincoln Brigarde were 
pro-left/republicans in the Spanish Civil War, late 1930s.

Alger Hiss is said to be the epitome of the 
intellectual-internationalist-idealistic crust.

Robert J. Oppenheimer MAY too have been a spy, as were some other atomic bomb 
spies.

Ezra Pound took the Rightist side and broadcast Axis propaganda from 
fascist Italy during the war. 

Reality/history/politics is dynamic and complicated.

 

9. DC Dave

Jan 5, 8:47 pm

Let’s put a couple more nails in the FDR coffin. This is from the 
2000 book by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets,  Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors:

Whittaker Chambers reported to the FBI an odd story about [key 
Roosevelt aide] Niles that he had heard from a fellow Soviet agent 
named John Hermann in 1934 or 1935. A Soviet agent named Silverman (not 
George Silverman) was living in the next building from Alger Hiss. This 
Silverman apparently had an obviously homosexual affair with David 
Niles. Silverman had told Niles of the work of the underground 
apparatus in Washington, and Niles later threatened to expose the 
activities of the Communist group unless Silverman left his wife. To 
solve the problem, J. Peters, the head of the American Communist 
underground, ordered Hermann and Harold Ware to get Silverman to leave 
Washington, D. C. immediately. (pp. 180-181)

And this is from the 1966 book by Cornell Simpson, The Death of James 
Forrestal.


The mysterious Niles, who had an office in the White House, operated 
very secretively; however when various Fifth Amendment Communists were 
asked by congressional committees if they knew Niles, they refused to 
answer on the grounds that if they did so they might incriminate 
themselves. (p. 90)

Now I guess it’s possible that Niles kept all the information he had on 
the communist infiltration of their administration away from Roosevelt, 
but he was a very close adviser to the President. More than likely, 
when Adolf Berle relayed Chambers’ charges to the President in 1939, he 
was telling him something that he already knew.

 

10. Robert Cohen

Jan 6, 11:02 am

Subject: Re: Whittaker Chambers’ Witness

re: an indirect comment that is relevant

The embarrassing sexual, homosexual, lesbian & gay phenomena figure-in 
these reports/incidents/anecdotes of blackmail/intimidation/spying; and 
the phenomena have been costly surely more than anybody can really 
know/calculate.

For an obvious/publicized instance:

Immediately prior to the Iraq (mis)advenrture, 2003(?), a number (5?) 
gay American translators was cashiered-out/fired from the U.S. military 
by way of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” flimsiness, whether 
Constitutional, moral, or whatever it’s policy/reality.

Hmmmmmmm: There has been a decidedly lack of good/accurate intelligence 
about Iraq.

Draw one’s own conclusions about The Human Comedy/The Human Tragedy/The 
Human Absurdity of reality.

Rumor I read in NATIONAL REVIEW years ago: Hiss-Chambers allegedly also 
had a sexual affair/encounter in 1930s.

END EXCHANGE

 

The Public Broadcasting System is actually worse on this subject than I have characterized them in entry #7 above.  Here is how they begin their short Alger Hiss profile, which is part of a larger piece on notorious spies:

“Though Alger Hiss, a U.S. State Department official, was accused of spying for the Soviet Union and imprisoned, he was never convicted of espionage per se. Throughout his life, Hiss denied any involvement in espionage, and many historians have for years remained polarized on the question of Hiss’s spying; some believe that declassified documents prove he did spy for the Soviets, and some still see these allegations as groundless.”

Indeed, it is possible to find, even at this late date, a few extreme left-wing ideologues, or people pretending to be such in order to mislead the public and keep it divided, who will argue that Hiss was innocent.  On this subject they have lost the ability to polarize anyone who has taken any time at all to look into the matter.  The battle over this question is essentially over.  Alger Hiss, with the assistance of Whittaker Chambers, spied on the United States for the Soviet Union.  Chambers broke with the Communists and tried very hard to get Hiss, whom he called his best friend in the party, to break with them as well, but Hiss continued as a covert operative.

So why is PBS still covering up for Alger Hiss, and, more importantly, why is it telling lies to protect Franklin Roosevelt?

Oh, by the way, as of this writing, PBS has not responded to my request for the source of their allegation that Adolf Berle scoffed at the claims of Whittaker Chambers.

David Martin

January 29, 2006


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

$100 Billion Goes To Israel While America Crumbles

As social devastation occurs here in America via poverty, lower wages, the poorest healthcare of any industrialized country in the world (yet we pay the most), a police state being assembled (readying for the orchestrated race war), and the deterioration of our social skillsets via the tainted Jewish influences of debauchery, porn, media manipulation, multiculturalism gone haywire, etc, etc, etc…

US military aid to Israel tops $100Billion

And that does not include all the other monies, loans (that end up as freebies), and protections to Stolenland that your hard earned tax dollar pays for while we waste away. BTW: we also pay them to train our police forces to become the merciless killers that you see reported daily.

Time to stop these things a’goin on.

Thanks Rick.

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 Historically Challenged Paul Craig Roberts

the-thinker2

“Nothing comparable has ever been witnessed in history”

 

Washington Chokes Truth With Lies

Paul Craig Roberts

The fraud perpetuated on the world by the United States in the 21st century is extraordinary.  Nothing comparable has ever been witnessed in history.  Not only are there the frauds of the numerous wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, almost Iran and Washington’s illegal military actions within the borders of Pakistan and Yemen, but also the vast financial frauds perpetuated on the world.  Among the costs of Wall Street’s frauds are the European debt crisis, the infringements of national sovereignty of European countries by the IMF bailouts of sovereign debt,  and the impoverishment of “rescued” Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, along with Eastern Europe.

Read more:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/13/washington-chokes-truth-lies-paul-craig-roberts/

roberts_yalmulke

I never worked for any criminally insane POTUS, as has PCR (sorry if there are some Reaganites who get pissed about that statement). But the man must be deft, if he makes such a statement. Of course, PCR will never mention the Jew, either (which is telling). Sure, he floats around the subject, but to him the neocons are more important than the Jewishness of the neocons.

History shows us that what we are experiencing now is standard operating procedure for the Jews that run shit here. WWI and WWII were only carried forward because Jews ran those POTUS administrations, too. Somehow PCR must not understand that basic fact, either.

Of course there have been historical events that equal or make pale today’s events. It is a continuum of the same old.

But an old guy that has his roots and ideology set in the Reagan fantasy would not ever admit it.

This dumb ole redneck knows that they have lied to us for much longer than PCR seems to think (which, must be around the time JFK was assassinated). I already called him out once, but now his historical inaccuracy seems to be getting worse. The question is, “Why?”

Is he truly this ignorant, or is he just afraid to call out the Jew, or is this guy a shill protecting the Jew (like Sweetie at Washington’s Blog)?

 

So, WHEN did they begin lying? Before WWII, during or afterwards?

 

 

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 Tale of Two Obituaries

A Tale of Two Obituaries

by DC Dave

Some time ago I searched out an article in The New York Times, and shortly after that a pitch for an online subscription began appearing in my inbox. “The New York Times,” it said, “satisfies your need to know by connecting you to award-winning journalism, fresh perspectives and innovative multimedia; anytime, anywhere.”

And those of us who watch the quiz show Jeopardy in the Washington, DC, area are regaled every weeknight with a Times advertisement that promises to deliver to your door for 50% off some of “the world’s finest journalism.”

I count myself among those not taken in by their blandishments. The late conservative journalist, Joseph Sobran, was another. Here is how he begins his classic essay, “The Jewish Establishment”:

In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in the Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.

Now imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated – thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime’s persecution. Would that paper’s respectability have been unimpaired several decades later?

There you have an epitome of what is lamely called “media bias.” The Western supporters of Stalin haven’t just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call the “McCarthy era,” to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself.

In my article, “The New York Times and Joseph Stalin” I show further that “Duranty was hardly a rogue reporter duping his employer.” In his covering up for Stalin and his glorification of the brutal, genocidal Communist state of the Soviet Union, he was merely carrying out his bosses’ orders.

“But that’s all in the distant past,” I can hear the objection. With all that we’ve learned about the evils of the Soviet Union and world Communism we don’t see anything like that anymore in The Times, do we? Well, let’s have a look at their obituary for a man who in many ways was Communist China’s Walter Duranty, and this obituary was published only nine years ago:

Israel Epstein, Prominent Chinese Communist, Dies at 90156837

By DOUGLAS MARTIN

Published: June 2, 2005

Israel Epstein, a journalist, author and propagandist for China whose passion for Communism was fueled in long interviews with Mao in the 1940’s and was not dimmed by imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution, died last Thursday at a hospital in Beijing. He was 90.

His death was announced by the official New China News Agency.

Mr. Epstein edited China Today, an English-language Chinese newsmagazine, translated the sayings and writings of Mao and Deng Xiaoping and advised the Chinese government on how to polish its overseas image. He became a Chinese citizen, joined the Communist Party and served on official government and party committees.

He and perhaps a dozen other aging foreign-born residents of Beijing were sometimes seen as the last true believers in a revolution that has sometimes seemed blurred by time’s passage and China’s embrace of free markets and consumerism.

In 1996, The Observer, the London newspaper, said, “Perhaps the most loyal Communists in the country today are foreigners, veteran fellow travelers from a vanished era of idealism.”

Mr. Epstein hung Mao’s portrait on his bedroom wall; knew the American journalist Edgar Snow well enough to help edit his books; was a protégé of the widow of Sun Yat-sen, the founder of China’s first republic; and was able to say the five years he spent in prison on false charges during the Cultural Revolution had helped improve him by shrinking his ego. For decades China’s top leaders visited him on his birthdays.

“My basic ideas have not changed,” he told The Observer. “I see no reason to change them.”

Israel Epstein was born on April 20, 1915, in Warsaw, then under Russian control. His father was imprisoned by the czarist authorities for leading a labor uprising, and his mother was once exiled to Siberia.

“The earliest influence on me came from my socialist parents,” Mr. Epstein said in an interview with China Daily in 2003.

After the outbreak of World War I, his father was sent by his company to Japan to develop business in the Pacific region. As the German Army approached Warsaw, his mother, with him in her arms, fled the city and traveled east to be reunited with her husband. After experiencing anti-Jewish sentiment in several places, they settled in Tianjin in north China. He was then 2.

Mr. Epstein began his career as a journalist at 15, working for the Tianjin-based Peking and Tientsin Times, an English-language newspaper. He covered China’s struggle against Japanese invaders for United Press and other Western news organizations.

In 1941, a short item in The New York Times reported that he had been killed, but it later turned out that he had faked his death to divert the Japanese who were hunting him. He anonymously submerged into a Japanese internment camp for a while.

Mr. Epstein became acquainted with Mr. Snow after his editor assigned him to review one of Mr. Snow’s books, and Mr. Snow showed him his classic “Red Star Over China” before it was published. Mr. Snow reciprocated by reading Mr. Epstein’s unpublished works.

In Hong Kong, Mr. Epstein worked with Soong Ching Ling, Sun Yat-sen’s widow, whom he had met in left-wing political activities in the 1930’s. She arranged for him to visit Mao, Zhou Enlai and their revolutionary comrades at their base in China’s northwest in 1944, and Mr. Epstein said his conversations in a cave with Mao had changed his life.

In 1944, Mr. Epstein visited Britain, then spent the next five years in the United States, where he published “The Unfinished Revolution in China” to good reviews. Other books he wrote were first published in Chinese and included “From Opium War to Liberation” in 1954, “Tibet Transformed” in 1983 and “Woman in World History: Soong Ching Ling” in 1993.

In 1951, Ms. Soong invited him to return to China to edit China Reconstructs, later renamed China Today. He was editor in chief until his retirement at 70, and then editor emeritus.

His five years in prison during the Cultural Revolution, on charges of plotting against Zhou, ended in 1973 with a personal apology from Zhou and a restoration of his exalted position.

His prominence in China was suggested by the annual talks Mao had with him. Deng attended Mr. Epstein’s retirement reception in 1985. On April 17, the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, visited him and praised his “special contributions” to China.

Mr. Epstein first wife, Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley, died in 1984. He is survived by his wife, Wan Bi, two children and two stepchildren.

He will be buried at the Babaoshan Cemetery for Revolutionaries.

epMao1944

Israel Epstein, second from right in front, standing in front of Mao.

“What a fine, idealistic, even heroic, though perhaps a trifle misguided man he was,” the reader can’t help thinking. The obituary is mainly factual, but consider how the facts are presented and what the article leaves out. Contrast its opening lines from those of the British Telegraph:

Israel Epstein, who has died in Beijing aged 90, was one of the last survivors of the band of foreign apologists for Mao Tse Tung, and propagated a heroic image of modern China’s creation by the Great Helmsman which is only now starting to be unstitched.

One should not separate, as The Times does, Epstein the propagandist for Mao Tse Tung, from the evils of what he was selling. The Telegraph article also shows more clearly that Epstein’s pro-Chinese Communist propaganda work, directed at Western audiences by this hardened Marxist, began during World War II.

184A582E-ED31-4710-9E4E-A7075870BEAB-8965-000011726D538103_zps5a781f70

From the New York Times perspective, when Epstein came to the United States he turned into some sort of fine, objective scholar, producing the book The Unfinished Revolution in China “to good reviews.” What they don’t tell us is that the most widely read and influential of the lot was turned out in the pages of their own newspaper by one Owen Lattimore. You can read his entire glowing review in my article “McCarthy Target Touted Soviet Agent’s Book in NY Times.” As I say in that article:

Readers of this web site will recognize Lattimore.  He is the powerful adviser to the Truman administration who a couple of years later, after China had fallen to the Communists, called for surrender of Korea to the Reds in another New York newspaper, The Daily Compass His concluding lines were, “The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall—but not to let it look as though we pushed it.  Hence the recommendation of a parting grant of $150,000,000.”

And there is a good, but sinister, reason why The Times could speak of the positive reviewer reception of Epstein’s book in the plural. This comes from page 144 of Freda Utley’s The China Story:

In America, during the 1940’s, the union of the friends of the Chinese Communists enjoyed what amounted to a closed shop in the book-reviewing field.  Theirs were almost the only views expressed in such important publications as the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune Sunday book supplements and the Saturday Review of Literature—publications which make or break books.  (The Sunday Book Review supplement of the New York Times seems in recent months to have discarded many of its old reviewers in favor of others without Communist sympathies.)  If one looks through their back numbers, one finds that it was rare that any book on China was not given to a small group of reviewers.  Week after week, and year after year, most books on China, and on the Far East, were reviewed by Owen Lattimore, John K. Fairbank, Edgar Snow, Nathaniel Peffer, Theodore White, Annallee Jacoby, Richard Lauterbach, and others with the same point of view.

As we show through the Senate testimony of Alfred Kohlberg in “The Institute of Pacific Relations and Communist China,” that Communist dominated organization had a virtual hammerlock during that period over who got books published about China and who wrote reviews of them.

Also missing from the Times obituary is the charge made by Communist defector Elizabeth Bentley before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1951 that Epstein “had been a member of the Russian secret police for many years in China.”

 

Selling Us out to Another Ignoble Cause

7780769_orig

These days, the foreign interest that The NY Times and its brethren in the U.S. news media are shilling for is mainly not Communism, but Zionism. Here we return to Sobran and “The Jewish Establishment.”

Jewish-owned publications like The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Post, and New York’s Daily News emit relentless pro-Israel propaganda; so do such pundits as William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Will, to name a few. That Israel’s journalistic partisans include so many gentiles – lapsed goyim, you might say – is one more sign of the Jewish establishment’s power. So is the fact that this fact isn’t mentioned in public (though it is hardly unnoticed in private.)

So is the fear of being called “anti-Semitic.” Nobody worries about being called “anti-Italian” or “anti-French” or “anti-Christian”; these aren’t words that launch avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid to do business with you.

It’s pointless to ask what “anti-Semitic” means. It means trouble. It’s an attack signal. The practical function of the word is not to define or distinguish things, but to conflate them indiscriminately – to equate the soberest criticism of Israel or Jewish power with the murderous hatred of Jews. And it works. Oh, how it works.

When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn’t make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his “loose” charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

The opposite applies to charges of “anti-Semitism.” The word has no precise definition. An “anti-Semite” may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn’t defined.

Sobran’s list of blatantly Israel-first columnists is now a bit out of date. For The Washington Post alone one can now add to Krauthammer and Will the names, at the very least, of Michael Gerson, Jackson Diehl, Fred Hiatt, and Richard Cohen. None of their regular columnists take as critical a view of the actions of the Israeli government as one is likely to find routinely in Israel’s daily Haaretz.

For a brief period of time, the pro-Israel grip on opinion molding was not so complete as it is now, at least in the Washington, DC, area. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the fledgling Washington Times, in a serious effort to attract readers, featured some of the very best conservative columnists in the business, and Joseph Sobran was at the top of that list. It also featured John Lofton, Patrick Buchanan, and the late Sam Francis. It also had the late Reed Irvine, but his reason for being eventually terminated wasn’t so much ideological as it was excessive truth seeking and the departure of Joe Goulden from his organization. During that period I ended my subscription to The Washington Post in favor of The Washington Times.

Those days are now long gone. One by one The Times dropped its good, relatively independent, conservative columnists, and these days it can hardly be distinguished from Fox News. Joe Sobran died much too young at age 64 in 2010, but brilliant writer that he was, he had long since been banished from the pages of National Review, where he had made his mark, and from The Times, publishing only in the Catholic magazine, The Wanderer, and in an excellent Internet blog.

Obituary #2

Considering what he had had to say about them, one should expect that The New York Times would give Sobran a somewhat less-than-complimentary obituary, and it did not disappoint.   The obituary that caught my eye, though, was the one in The Washington Post:

Joseph Sobran, 64, conservative columnist and editorjoseph-sobran-237x320

By Matt Schudel

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 2, 2010; 7:38 PM (with my own critical links)

Joseph Sobran, 64, a fiery conservative columnist and magazine editor whose hostile views toward Israel and Jews led to his ouster as a top editor of National Review magazine in 1993, died Sept. 30 at Fairfax Nursing Center in Fairfax County. He had complications from diabetes.

In the mid-1980s, Mr. Sobran was a rising star of the intellectual right. He was a senior editor at National Review, personally recruited by the magazine’s founder, William F. Buckley Jr., and had a wide following as a syndicated newspaper columnist, essayist and speaker.

Motivated by a strong Catholic faith, Mr. Sobran (pronounced SOH-brun) hardened his social views and cultivated a growing belief in U.S. isolationism in international affairs. He began to clash with Buckley on foreign policy matters during the Reagan administration and developed a deep antipathy toward Israel and Jewish lobbying interests in the United States.

Mr. Sobran later objected to what he considered executive overreaching by the administration of George H.W. Bush, writing that Bush was “the sort of politician our Founding Fathers were tying to prevent.” Mr. Sobran was among the few conservatives opposed to the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

By late 1991, Buckley had had enough of his fractious protégé and published a series of articles about right-wing anti-Semitism. Without overtly calling Mr. Sobran an anti-Semite, Buckley left that clear impression. Other leading thinkers on the right, including neoconservative author and editor Norman Podhoretz, didn’t mince words in condemning Mr. Sobran’s views.

After Mr. Sobran retaliated with essays critical of Buckley in 1993, he was fired from National Review in 1993.

Over the years, Mr. Sobran’s views veered ever more wildly to the right, beyond the ken of National Review and anything resembling the mainstream. He praised an unabashedly racist publication called Instauration, which, in Mr. Sobran’s own words, was “openly and almost unremittingly hostile to blacks, Jews, and Mexican and Oriental immigrants.”

With little substantiation, he wrote of centuries of Jewish persecution of Christians and denounced Israel as an untrustworthy “tiny, faraway socialist ethnocracy.” He wrote that the New York Times “really ought to change its name to Holocaust Update.”

He claimed the attacks of Sept. 11 were caused at least in part by U.S. policies toward the Middle East, which he said were shaped by “Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States.” He spoke at conferences organized by British Holocaust denier. David Irving.

Increasingly isolated on the right, Mr. Sobran wrote for publications of the Catholic Church and the arch-conservative John Birch Society. He also turned his attention to his lifelong interest in the works of William Shakespeare.

In 1997, he published “Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time,” in which he contended that Shakespeare’s plays were actually written by Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

Mr. Sobran was hardly the first person to make the claim, which has been widely debunked by literary scholars. Even a critic for the conservative Washington Times dismissed Mr. Sobran’s argument as “balderdash.”

Michael Joseph Sobran Jr. was born in Ypsilanti, Mich., on Feb. 23, 1946. After graduating from Eastern Michigan University, he stayed on at the university to study English literature in graduate school.

In 1972, Mr. Sobran voiced support for a campus visit by Buckley, which was opposed by many faculty members. Buckley saw Mr. Sobran’s letter to the school paper and hired him for National Review.

After leaving National Review, Mr. Sobran – who sometimes wrote under the bylines of M.J. Sobran and M. Joseph Sobran Jr. – edited a monthly newsletter, Sobran’s, containing his essays. He published “Hustler: The Clinton Legacy” in 2000 and was at work on books about Shakespeare and Abraham Lincoln at the time of his death.

Mr. Sobran had lived in Northern Virginia since 1983.

His marriages to Janet Schnabel Sobran and Jeanne Walker ended in divorce.

Survivors include four children, Christina Sobran of Waterville, Maine, Vanessa Williams of Virginia Beach, Kent Sobran of Toledo and Michael Sobran of Alexandria; a brother; several half-siblings; and 10 grandchildren.

There you have it: two obituaries. The first is of a man who during the short period he lived in the United States may be described as the archetype of a subversive. He spent almost his entire career in the service of a genocidal maniac who presided over perhaps the greatest man-made disaster in human history. Hong Kong-based historian, Frank Dikötter, examining recently available archives from China, has said that it was “like [the Cambodian communist dictator] Pol Pot’s genocide multiplied 20 times over.” (See also footnote 3 in my article, “John F. Kennedy on the Loss of China.”) The man most responsible for putting the spin on this inconceivable savagery for Western audiences was rewarded with an obituary befitting a kindly old uncle.

The second is of an American journalist widely recognized for the elegance and clarity of his writing who tossed away an illustrious career by calling things like he saw them, as a true journalist should. For that he gets treated almost like a criminal in his obituary.

It really is quite educational. What, really, would you expect from a press that has covered up every major outrage of this writer’s lifetime, from the assassinations of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., to the assault on the USS Liberty, the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11 and was an early champion of the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

The American press being what it is these days, Joseph Sobran’s obituary is really one to which we all should aspire. It is a badge of honor.

David Martin

August 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