$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

Presstitutes: A Literary Toast


Poem and Narration by DC Dave Martin

A Literary Toast

Let’s hear it for our propagandists,
The people who bring us the news.
Unencumbered by troublesome scruples,
They’re proud of their compromised views.
There once was a time we admired them.
We thought they were principled fighters,
But what we see now is more worthy
Of the Union of Soviet Writers.
That they should be liberty’s guardians
Is truly a shame and a pity,
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

Let’s hear it for news commentators,
Those masters of punditry,
Who share with us all their opinions,
Wide-ranging from A down to B.
Standing right there in the spotlight,
They could do some significant things,
But we’d sooner expect wooden puppets
To dance without handles or strings.
Impressing no one but their colleagues,
They’re not even learned or witty,
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

Let’s hear it for all those reporters
Who learn how the contest is played.
If they will just write what’s expected
They can be handsomely paid,
But most garner practically nothing
And eventually fall off the ladder.
The losers depart mostly wiser,
While the winners grow gradually sadder.
Let’s hear it for all those survivors
Whose road to the top is not pretty,
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

David Martin

Link for Union of Soviet Writers

Video by BuelahMan

Bro Kapner may not agree.

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

James Forrestal and John Kennedy

James Forrestal and John Kennedy

by DC Dave

james forrestal

James Forrestal, who was assistant secretary of the Navy and then secretary of the Navy for most of World War II was a severe critic of the foreign policy and the war policy of the government for which he worked. We will perhaps never know just how severe a critic he was because when he was sent off to Bethesda Naval Hospital the Truman White House confiscated his diaries and only a severely edited version was published. What is purported to be the entire work is available for examination at the Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library of Princeton University, but it is frankly unbelievable that the most revealing negative passages would not have been removed, considering the chain of custody of the document.

We can get some idea of the nature of Forrestal’s differences with the FDR and Truman administrations from a couple of published quotes. The first I have repeated in one form or another in several previous articles. It comes from page 7 of Senator Joe McCarthy’s book, The Fight for America, and it is the tail end of an account of a conversation the freshly elected Senator McCarthy had at a 1946 lunch meeting that Navy Secretary Forrestal had requested:

Before meeting Jim Forrestal I thought we were losing to international Communism because of incompetence and stupidity on the part of our planners.  I mentioned that to Forrestal.  I shall forever remember his answer.  He said, “McCarthy, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity.  If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”  This phrase stuck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

The second quote comes from an October 15, 1951, article in Life magazine entitled “The Forrestal Diaries.” It is not from the diaries themselves but from a letter that Forrestal wrote to a friend during the war:

I find that whenever any American suggests that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a [profane adjective deleted] fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that his is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants. (Cited in The Iron Curtain over America by John Beaty, 1958, p. 67)

Moreover, in my article, “Forrestal Ignored: China Lost to Reds, Korean War Fought,” I show that Forrestal worked on his own to effect an earlier end to the war with Japan than what actually occurred in order to head off Soviet ambitions in the Far East and was frustrated in his efforts by his superiors.

It should come as no surprise, then, that with views so different from the other advisers that President Harry Truman had inherited from Franklin Roosevelt, Forrestal was not a part of the official delegation to the Potsdam Conference shortly after the German surrender. What is more surprising—though perhaps not so much with a man like Forrestal—is that he went to the conference, held near devastated Berlin, on his own. * Most intriguingly, he took with him the 28-year-old Navy veteran son of a friend by the name of John F. Kennedy, “picking JFK up in Paris and taking him in his personal aircraft to Berlin, Bremen, Frankfurt, Salzburg, and Hitler’s aerie in Berchtesgarden.” The friend, of course, was Wall Street power and controversial former ambassador to the United Kingdom, Joseph Kennedy, and father Joe had used his influence with publisher William Randolph Hearst to arrange for young John to work as a journalist covering the conference.

If the knowledgeable and strong-willed anti-Communist Forrestal could have influenced his new acquaintance McCarthy as strongly as he did with that one lunch meeting, one can only imagine the education he might have imparted to the young family friend, Kennedy, in the time they spent together on that Europe trip. Actually, one doesn’t have to imagine it completely. The speech that JFK delivered as a Congressman in January of 1949 blistering the administration, which was run by his own Democratic party, for its actions contributing to the Communist takeover of China could have been written by Forrestal himself had he still been alive.

In all likelihood, young Kennedy hardly required a lot of information and influence from Forrestal to be aware of the alien and subversive forces at work within the United States. He was the son of Joseph P. Kennedy, after all. Consider this now famous passage from Forrestal’s diary that made it past the editing process:

27 December 1945

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, then Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. (Walter Millis, The Forrestal Diaries, pp. 121-122, emphasis added.)

When Forrestal fell to his death from a 16th floor window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 22, 1949, JFK, knowing what he knew, is highly unlikely to have been naïve enough to accept the suicide story. He knew the kind of man Forrestal was and he was well aware of the Zionist and Communist forces that opposed him. He very likely had heard of the Jewish Stern Gang’s letter bomb attempts on the life President Truman in 1947 and before that on British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin. He no doubt knew that both groups regarded Forrestal as American enemy number one and he knew what they were capable of.

JFKWHP-ST-C194-9-63editedIt is in this context that we must consider JFK’s decision on Memorial Day, 1963, to visit the Arlington Cemetery tomb of his friend and mentor, Forrestal. Memorial Day is often confused with Veterans Day. It is not for honoring everyone who has served in the United States armed forces. Its purpose is to honor those who have died while serving in the armed forces. Forrestal would appear not to qualify. He was a veteran, having trained as a Navy flyer but never making it overseas in World War I, and he had made a great contribution to the World War II effort in his various capacities. He was also the nation’s first secretary of defense. But when he died he was a civilian and the country was at peace.

Was it inappropriate, then, for JFK to honor Forrestal on Memorial Day as he did? I suggest that if one broadens—or perhaps narrows—the definition of the honorees of Memorial Day to those who died fighting for their country against its enemies the presidential visit to Forrestal’s grave could hardly have been more appropriate, and Kennedy more than likely knew it. Unfortunately, their common enemies would likely have known it, too, and they would have regarded it as just another strike against him.

Another Interpretation of the Tribute

Kennedy’s visit to Forrestal’s grave has also been noted by Catherine Austin Fitts on her web site, The Solari Report. Like Forrestal she is a former official at the Wall Street firm of Dillon, Read & Co. who later had a high position in Washington. In her case it was as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the George H.W. Bush administration. She mentions Forrestal’s opposition to the creation of the state of Israel and “controversy around the official explanation of his death,” but her conclusion can only be described as Delphic: “Presidents are busy people. They do not just take time off to visit graves over in Arlington after official ceremonies are over. It looks to me as though something was weighing on his mind. I can guess what it was. You can too.”

She seems to have missed the fact that it was Memorial Day, and I don’t think she gives readers enough information for them to guess what it was that was weighing on the president’s mind. She does link to my “Who Killed James Forrestal?”, though. Perhaps she expects that you will read that before you do your guessing.

Fitts also informs us that she learned of the Forrestal-JFK link from Michael Salla’s recent book, Kennedy’s Last Stand: Eisenhower, UFOs, MJ-12 & JFK’s Assassination. As the title of the book suggests, Salla is a complete UFO guy. A search of the Kindle version of his book for the words “Israel,” “Jew,” and “Jewish” all draw blanks. “Communist” turns up only this sentence with a comically misplaced modifier and a redundancy: “As a former communist defector, Angleton and the CIA could persuasively argue that Oswald’s involvement directly implicated the USSR.”

Salla’s argument, as I understand it, is that both Forrestal and Kennedy were assassinated because of what they knew and were in danger of revealing about our encounters with extraterrestrial beings. He recognizes that in order to make his case he must first show that Forrestal was, in fact, murdered and did not commit suicide as we have been told. In doing that, though, he seems to be employing the spook-writing technique of careful avoidance of writing anything that might actually change anyone’s mind.

No one can argue in the second decade of the 21st century that Forrestal was murdered without taking note of my work, which Salla duly does. He has four endnotes to my web site but the case he makes with it could hardly be weaker. The first is to the URL http://www.dcdave.com/article5/080429.htm, which he calls “Letter to former Virginia governor.” The article at the site is actually entitled “Lies about the Kennedy and Forrestal Deaths from the University of Virginia’s Miller Center,” which is a good deal stronger than the title Salla has chosen. Former Governor Gerald Baliles happens to be the center’s director. Salla references the letter, which is part of the article, for this short quote in his book:

Forrestal resigned because he was asked to resign by President Truman. He had not suffered a nervous breakdown. None of the doctors who treated him at Bethesda Naval Hospital described his condition as a nervous breakdown. What is more important, though, recently uncovered evidence greatly undermines the theory that Forrestal voluntarily jumped out of the window at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Just as the quote is beginning to get really informative, Salla cuts it off. He never tells the reader what that new evidence is. Instead he jumps to UFOlogist Richard Dolan for observations from his 2001, thoroughly outdated “The Death of James Forrestal.” He then references Part 1 of my “Who Killed James Forrestal?” three times before getting back to Dolan, but he does that only for what I have passed on from Cornell Simpson’s 1966 book, also titled The Death of James Forrestal.

I have attempted to get Dolan to update his material on Forrestal’s death by incorporating information from the official investigation, known as the Willcutts Report, which I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 2004, but he has ignored me. Similarly, if one searches Salla’s book for “Willcutts Report” he draws a blank. A search for “broken glass,” which we discover from the Willcutts Report was tellingly found on Forrestal’s vacated bed, also turns up nothing.

We have also shown that the poem transcription that the press and historians have treated as a sort of suicide note was not in Forrestal’s handwriting. We do get some hits searching “handwriting” in Salla’s book, but none of them have anything to do with the Forrestal death case.

Note from James Forrestal to John O’Hara

Note from James Forrestal to John O’Hara

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Willcutts Report poem

Willcutts Report poem

Since Salla’s purpose is to show that protectors of UFO secrets were behind both the Forrestal and Kennedy assassinations (A search of “UFO” turns up 72 pages of hits.) it is perhaps understandable that he would not mention those whom others regard as the top suspects. After all, searching “UFO” in my work on Forrestal’s death won’t turn up much of anything, either. His careful avoidance of the best evidence demonstrating that Forrestal was, in fact, murdered simply marks him as a disinformationist, however.

America’s Sad “Historians”

Taking stock, almost a decade after I made public the long secret report on Forrestal’s death, three books, to my knowledge, have now made explicit reference to my work. In addition to Salla’s book, we have two anti-Zionist books, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel by Alison Weir and Part One of Alan Hart’s Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews entitled The False Messiah. Of these three, only Hart mentions the Willcutts Report, and he, like Weir, is a journalist, so the standard has not yet been met for the University of Virginia’s Miller Center to begin to modify its flat statement that Forrestal committed suicide:

The web site is an educational site for general users. As such, we see our responsibility as providing our users with a mainstream interpretation of history. We do not publish groundbreaking new scholarship or challenge the historical consensus that is derived from secondary sources written by established academics. If you can point us to secondary sources written by established historians that discuss the Willcutts report and cast doubt on whether Forrestal committed suicide, we would be very interested in reading them.

Nicholas Thompson in The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War makes quite extensive but still very selective reference to the Willcutts Report. We show in Part 6 of “Who Killed James Forrestal” how thoroughly dishonest Thompson is in his treatment of the Willcutts material, though.

Thompson, too, is a journalist, so even if he had been honest with the Willcutts evidence it would not have been enough to get the Miller Center** to budge. They’re still waiting for “established academics” and “established historians” to weigh in. Considering the current sad state of the academic history community the wait is likely to be a long one. Reflecting the consensus of those academic historians, the Miller Center still says that all the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Governor John Connally came from the Texas Schoolbook Depository and Lee Harvey Oswald remains the lone gunman. As for the Forrestal case, to date, the only person calling himself a historian who has taken note of the Willcutts Report is a young man by the name of Matthew McNiece, who teaches history at the obscure Howard Payne University in Texas. He did it in a puerile, semi-literate effort that passed muster as his doctoral dissertation at Texas Christian University.

In my poem, “A Literary Toast,” I compare America’s journalists to the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Writers. The Soviet similarity is at least as great if not greater, it would appear, with America’s academic historians.

 


 

 

* Here is how Elizabeth Churchill Brown in The Enemy at His Back explains Forrestal’s purpose:

Forrestal…had been fairly popular with the elite Washington conference group until his patriotism combined with his intelligence forced [Assistant Secretary of State] Joseph Grew to share his dog house with him. Forrestal had been reading reports, making personal inspections, and had started asking questions. Unlike Mr. Grew, the Secretary of the Navy was not only well acquainted with those “certain elements” but he also understood their aims. Naval intelligence was perhaps the best of our wartime intelligence agencies (excluding the FBI), and Forrestal was reading daily the many intercepted messages between Japan and Russia in which the former was attempting to negotiate a surrender. Moreover, Forrestal had recently made a complete tour of the Pacific war theater where he saw the war being fought and talked with the officers and men doing the fighting. He was “dangerous.”

Knowing the territorial loot that Truman was intent on giving the Russians at Potsdam, and realizing the tragic needlessness of such concessions, Forrestal came to the conclusion he must act, and quickly. He flew to the Conference in a desperate hope of being able to place a deterring hand on the President’s shoulder. But the day he arrived the conference came to an end and the damage was done. (pp. 139-140)

** It is of some interest that before Governor Baliles was given the job in 2005, the director of the Miller Center was Philip D. Zelikow, who was also the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow, who also worked on George W. Bush’s transition team in 2001, is now Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at UVA and in 2011 President Obama appointed him to his Intelligence Advisory Board.

 

David Martin

August 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

The Cholesterol Myth

statins-killI recently went to the Doctor for back problems (all she did was give me pain meds and muscle relaxers). The pain did not go away, but it did help me sleep better. Three days later I went to a Chiropractor and he told me to take Advil to minimize the inflammation (and popped my back way down low) and I was over it in two days.

While I was at the Dr, she wanted to do a regular blood screening (1 year prostate, cholesterol, and other shit to make me buy more meds). She told me that my cholesterol was too high (within the normal ranges that were medically dictated just a few years ago, but now lowered even more to sell statins). She was going to write me a prescription and I told her not to bother because I would not take them (the look on her face was incredulous).

She asked why and I said because it isn’t proven and there are horrific side effects. She admitted so and didn’t push it, but did say she wanted me to lose weight and change my diet to lower the evil cholesterol on my own.

However, the more I look into this issue, the more problems I find with the meds, so it is near impossible for me to ever take one under any circumstance. Here are just a few reasons why:


So many people go to the doctor with high cholesterol and end up on a statin or cholesterol lowering drug for years, if not their entire lives. Dr. Peter Glidden says there is something fundamentally wrong with that and that prolonged statin use can lead to many more serious conditions.
http://www.ihealthtube.com http://www.facebook.com/ihealthtube

From Dr Mercola:

 

The cholesterol myth has suffered a bit of a triple whammy of late, making it harder and harder for heart specialists to uphold the company line. This information is just the latest in a long line of science disproving the need for the saturated fat phobia.

    1. In 2012, researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology examined the health and lifestyle habits of more than 52,000 adults ages 20 to 74, concluding that women with “high cholesterol” (greater than 270 mg/dl) had a 28 percent lower mortality risk than women with “low cholesterol” (less than 183 mg/dl).

Researchers also found that, if you’re a woman, your risk for heart disease, cardiac arrest, and stroke are higher with lower cholesterol levels.3

    1. In 2013, a prominent London cardiologist by the name of Aseem Malhotra argued in the British Medical Journal that you should ignore advice to reduce your saturated fat intake, because it’s actually increasing your risk for obesity and heart disease.4
    2. Then in March 2014, a new meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, using data from nearly 80 studies and more than a half million people, found that those who consume higher amounts of saturated fat have no more heart disease than those who consume less.

They also did not find less heart disease among those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including both olive oil and corn oil.5, 6

By and large, medical and pharmaceutical companies exist to make profit. The profit incentive is the problem with our system. When I point out to many that a Single Payer system, initiated and run by a consortium effort, dedicated to the best care, BUT NOT PROFIT, people go crazy for some reason. People don’t understand the words “non-profit” which does NOT mean “make no money”. Many people make lots of money in non-profit environments. Its when a profit driven entity does not make PROFIT is when it is abandoned and considered a failure by investors.Statin Estimates put statin sales at $29Billion yearly, so don’t suggest that money and profit is not involved.

We need to stop allowing investors from dictating our care.

One of my favorite blogs in Video Rebel’s blog. He discusses all sorts of ways to improve banking and other issues by such consortium, but when I suggest putting healthcare under the same type system, all the sudden it won’t work.

Poppycock.

The reason these types of systems don’t work is the illusion of “profit must be guaranteed”.

His other points about improving food sources, eliminating contaminants, teaching true natural means of healing, etc, are all wonderful (and I agree totally), but we still need a system for the ailments and emergencies that will not cost more than double any other developed nation but at a fraction of the efficacy.

Single payer would do it, if done right, without the thieves getting involved.

Oh, and don’t bring out the canard that the medical system for Vets doesn’t work (very similar to a single payer, but has the government’s fingerprints… which means that Big Business has taken over… for that is what happens to a Fascist country). Big Business interests rule government for mega profits. THAT is what is tearing down that once great system.

Personally, I am going to avoid the push for any medicine from every Doctor because I do not believe that the motive from the drup companies is healthcare, but PROFIT. And from the way that natural medicine is demonized by the media and medical establishment, my bet is that the serious cures will be found there… not in PROFIT!

 

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

What Democracy Is All About

NYDemocracy

I wonder if William Bratton, the alcohol ravaged Commissioner of New York City (look at the veins in his face), really has a clue about what Democracy really is about? Oh, and is it worth mentioning that he has the quintessential hook nose? Or that his FOURTH wife is a Jewess (from Ukrainian Jewish parents)? Or that he is an admitted Freemason and worked for Kroll, Inc (known for their involvement in the 911 WTC security… aka involvement of the False Flag)?

h/t BlackListedNews

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