Those of you who have followed this blog have read about Dr Doug by me (and he contributed quite a few posts, himself). I have shared his videos and told you that he is the best guitarist I ever knew personally (and better than most I knew from TV and concerts).

He was one of the most brilliant rednecks I ever knew. He caught on quick when it came to my rantings and because he trusted me, he knew he could follow up with something I shared and expound on it far more than I ever could. He told me several times that I helped wake him up. But he honed my abilities more than I ever explained to him.

I remember when he was a teen and picked up the guitar. He always wanted to be like his idol at the time, Hobbo, who was a fantastic guitarist until he let alcohol ruin him. Dr Doug became far better than Hobbo ever dreamed of.

I lost contact with Doug for nearly 20 years. But we made contact after he moved back to our hometown and married Beckie, the love of his life. He became my best friend.

He was that one person (not family) that I could share anything with. He was my confidant. He was the person I ran my crazy thoughts and rantings by first. He was the one that I called when I needed someone to talk to.

But the truth is that he had many “best friends” who loved him and looked up to him.

He was the one person, that had you called me to tell me he had died in his sleep, I wouldn’t believe it. There are only a few of the old hands left and any of them would not surprise me. But Doug, I thought, would live far longer than I.

I will write more about him later, but I want the world to know what a fine person they lost today.

He told me during one conversation a month or so ago, as his father was dying, that he wanted to just go in his sleep… no car wreck, no pain/suffering, no vegetable hooked up to lines and machines that just kept him breathing with no quality of life.

He did precisely that.

At 47.

Fuck.

If I were the “Stalin of America” most of our govt and media would be shot for treason or sent off to a FEMA camp or put to work on infrastructure projects. AIPAC and the Rothschild’s Federal Reserve would be no more. The debt would be erased over night. Lobbies and all political donations outlawed. MOSSAD agents in America would be shot on sight. And if Israel didn’t like it, some of our 81 nuclear attack subs and 11 carriers would finally be put to good use.

 

John Hagee would simply be put on a starvation diet. Pam Gellar sent to a concubinage in Saudi Arabia. Alan Dershowitz & Joe Lieberman parachuted into Afghanistan wearing IDF officer’s uniforms and MOSSAD ID. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld taken to Nevada and tied feet-first to wild stallions. Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh cast adrift on a life raft in the western Atlantic at 20 degrees north in the middle of Hurricane season. The entire lot of neo-cons involved in 9-11 would be loaded onto a remote control jet with just enough fuel to make it 500 miles off the east coast at 30,000′. These are only a few of the just ends for the traitorous agents of Israel.

 

This country would be cleaned up in short order.

 

Sgt. Raymond Turner, USA

Originally posted in the comments section at TUT

On the night of New Year’s Eve Dec. 31st, 1963, at the Driskell Hotel, Lyndon Johnson and Madeleine Brown, one of his longtime mistresses, had an interesting conversation. Madeleine asked LBJ if he had anything to do with the JFK assassination. Johnson got angry; he began pacing around and waving his arms. Then LBJ told her: it was Dallas, TX, oil executives and “renegade” intelligence agents who were behind the JFK assassination. LBJ later also told his chief of staff Marvin Watson that the CIA was involved in the murder of John Kennedy.

Lyndon Johnson would often stay at the Driskill (room #254 today) and LBJ is confirmed by his presidential schedule as being present at the Driskill Hotel the night of 12/31/63

History is proving that Lyndon Johnson played a key role in the JFK assassination. An important book is LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2011) by Phillip Nelson.  Roger Stone, an aide to Richard Nixon, is writing a book pinning the JFK assassination on LBJ. Stone quotes Nixon as saying:

“Both Johnson and I wanted to be president, but the only difference was I wouldn’t kill for it.”

By 1973 Barry Goldwater privately telling people that he was convinced that LBJ was behind the JFK assassination.

Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedys hated each other. So why was LBJ even put on the 1960 Demo ticket in first place? The old wive’s tale is that it was to balance the ticket and win the electoral votes of Texas. The reality is that JFK was set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri and had already had a deal with Symington to be VP that was “signed, sealed & delivered” according to Symington’s campaign manager Clark Clifford. Then something strange happened on the night of July 13, 1960, in Los Angeles. According to Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s longtime secretary, LBJ and Sam Rayburn were using some of Hoover’s blackmail information on John Kennedy to force JFK to put Johnson on the ticket in a hostile takeover of the vice presidency.

JFK told his friend Hy Raskin:

“They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.”

LBJ & Hoover were very close and literally neighbors for 19 years in Washington, DC, from 1943-1961. Both men were also plugged in socially and professionally to Texas oil executives such as Clint Murchison, Sr, H.L. Hunt and D.H. Byrd.

From that point on, for the next 3 and 1/3 years the Kennedy brothers and LBJ were engaged in a sub rosa war, even though they were ostensibly a political team. On the day of the ’61 inauguration, LBJ protege Bobby Baker told Don Reynolds that JFK would never live out his term and that he would die a violent death.

For his part, Robert Kennedy spent the remainder of JFK’s term trying to figure out a way to get rid of the power-grasping LBJ. The first opportunity to do this was the Billie Sol Estes scandal of 1961. Estes was a cut out for LBJ doing business and had received $500,000 from LBJ (which tells us how important Estes was). LBJ and his aide Cliff Carter manipulated the federal bureaucracy for Estes to ensure that he got exclusive grain storage contracts and numerous other special and highly lucrative favors. Estes says that he funneled Johnson over $10 million in kickbacks.

Henry Marshall was a US agricultural official who was investigating the corruption of Estes, particularly his abuse of a cotton allotment program. In January, 1961, LBJ, Cliff Carter, Estes and LBJ’s personal hit man Malcolm Wallace had a meeting about what to do about Henry Marshall. LBJ said:

“It looks like we will just have to get rid of him.”

Side note: the first person I know who accused Lyndon Johnson of committing a murder was Gov. Allan Shivers who in 1956 personally accused LBJ of having Sam Smithwick murdered in prison in 1952. Smithwick was threatening to go public with information about the Box 13 ballot stuffing scandal of 1948 which gave LBJ the margin of victory over Coke Stevenson in the Democratic primary.

Henry Marshall was murdered on June 3, 1961. He was shot to death 5 times with a bolt action gun and his death was astoundingly ruled a suicide at the time. The Marshall murder & cover up shows the depth, breadth and absolute ruthlessness of the LBJ organization. Billie Sol Estes died recently on May 14, 2013.

Historian Douglas Brinkley has said that by 1963 JFK and his vice president LBJ had no relationship at all. That is not correct; in fact a sub rosa war was being waged between the Kennedys and LBJ. It was an adversarial, death struggle relationship.

In the fall of 1963, the Bobby Baker scandal exploded into the national media. Bobby Baker, who as the secretary of the Senate was a virtual son to Lyndon Johnson, was being investigated for a vending machine kick back scam and numerous shady deals. Baker was known for providing booze & women to the senators. LBJ denied any relationship with Baker (who had named two of his kids after LBJ) while at the same time sending his personal lawyer Abe Fortas to run (control) Baker’s defense. Evelyn Lincoln told author Anthony Summers that the Kennedys were going to use the Bobby Baker scandal as the ammunition to get rid of LBJ.

Robert Kennedy had a two-track program to get rid of LBJ. Phil Brennan was in DC at the time: “Bobby Kennedy called five of Washington’s top reporters into his office and told them it was now open season on Lyndon Johnson. It’s OK, he told them, to go after the story they were ignoring out of deference to the administration.” James Wagenvoord, who in 1963 was a 27-year old assistant to LIFE Magazine’s managing editor, says that based on information fed from Robert Kennedy and the Justice Dept., LIFE Magazine had been developing a major newsbreak piece concerning Johnson and Bobby Baker. This expose was set to run within a week of the JFK assassination. LBJ aide George Reedy said that LBJ knew about the RFK-inspired media campaign against him and was obsessed with it.

RFK’s other “get rid of LBJ” program was an investigation by the Senate Rules Committee into LBJ’s kickbacks and other corruptions. Burkett Van Kirk was a counsel for that committee and he told Seymour Hersh that RFK had sent a lawyer to the committee to feed them damaging information about LBJ and his corrupt business dealings. The lawyer, Van Kirk said, “used to come up to the Senate and hang around me like a dark cloud. It took him about a week or ten days to, one, find out what I didn’t know, and two, give it to me.” The goal of the Kennedys was “To get rid of Johnson. To dump him. I am as sure of that the sun comes up in the east,” said Van Kirk to Hersh.

Literally at the very moment JFK was being assassinated in Dallas on 11-22-63, Don Reynolds was testifying in a closed session of the Senate Rules Committee about a suitcase of $100,000 given to LBJ for his role in securing a TFX fighter jet contract for Fort Worth’s General Dynamics.

Three days before the JFK assassination, JFK told Evelyn Lincoln that he was going to get a new running mate for 1964.

“I was fascinated by this conversation and wrote it down verbatim in my diary. Now I asked, “Who is your choice as a running-mate.’ He looked straight ahead, and without hesitating he replied, ‘at this time I am thinking about Gov. Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will not be Lyndon.’”

At this point I should add that I think the CIA/military intelligence murdered John Kennedy for Cold War reasons, particularly over Cuba policy. The fact that the Kennedys were within days of politically executing & personally destroying Lyndon Johnson could very well have been the tripwire for the JFK assassination.

The Russians immediately suspected that Texas oilmen were involved in the JFK assassination. They and Fidel Castro both feared they were going to be framed for it by US intelligence. By 1965 the KGB had internally determined that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination.

Hoover wrote to LBJ about this in a memo that was not declassified by the US government until 1996:

“On September 16, 1965, this same source [an FBI spy in the KGB] reported that the KGB Residency in New York City received instructions approximately September 16, 1965, from KGB headquarters in Moscow to develop all possible information concerning President Lyndon B. Johnson’s character, background, personal friends, family, and from which quarters he derives his support in his position as President of the United States. Our source added that in the instructions from Moscow, it was indicated that “now” the KGB was in possession of data purporting to indicate President Johnson was responsible for the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy. KGB headquarters indicated that in view of this information, it was necessary for the Soviet Government to know the existing personal relationship between President Johnson and the Kennedy family, particularly between President Johnson and Robert and “Ted” Kennedy.”

Robert Morrow, a political researcher and political activist, has an expertise in the JFK assassination. He can be reached at Morrow321@aol.com or 512-306-1510.

Notes:

1) Brown, Madeleine Duncan. Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Conservatory Press, 1997. Page 189.

2) Schlesinger, Arthur. Robert Kennedy and His Times. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978. Page 616.

3) Nelson, Phillip. LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination. Skyhorse Publishing, 2011.

4) Dickerson, Nancy. Among Those Present: A Reporter’s View of 25 Years in Washington. Random House, 1976. Page 43.

5) Hersh, Seymour. The Dark Side of Camelot. Back Bay Books, 1998. Page 126 and 407.

6) Epstein, Edward Jay. Esquire Magazine. December, 1966.

7) Estes, Billie Sol. Billie Sol Estes: A Texas Legend. BS Productions, 2004. Page 43.

8) Dallek, Robert. Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1908-1960. Oxford Univesity Press USA, 1992. Page 347.

9) Brinkley, Douglas. Speaking on Hardball with Chris Matthews, 2012.

10) Brennan, Phil. “Some Relevant Facts about the JFK Assassination,” NewsMax, 11-19-2003. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/18/152526.shtml

11) Reedy, George. Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir. Andrews McMeel Publications, 1985.

12) Wagenvoord, James. Email to John Simkin dated 11-3-09. Web link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14966

14) Lincoln, Evelyn. Kennedy and Johnson. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Page 205.

15) Hoover, J. Edgar. Memo to Lyndon Johnson with FBI leadership carbon copied. 12-1-66. Web link: http://www.indiana.edu/~oah/nl/98feb/jfk.html#d1

From Robert Kennedy and His Times by Arthur Schlesinger (1978):

“In 1967 Marvin Watson of Lyndon Johnson’s White House staff told Cartha DeLoach of the FBI that Johnson “was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt that CIA had had something to do with this plot.” (Washington Post, December 13, 1977)

James Wagenvoord email to John Simkin, dated 11-3-2009:

Posted 04 November 2009 – 07:52 AM

I thought researchers would be interested in reading this email I received last night:

I’ve been reading through you web site and believe that I can add one of the final jigsaw puzzle pieces that affect the timing of JFK’s Dallas trip and the nervousness of LBJ during the weeks preceding the killing At the time I was the 27 year old Editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor. Beginning in later summer 1963 the magazine, based upon information fed from Bobby Kennedy and the Justice Department, had been developoing a major newsbreak piece concerning Johnson and Bobby Baker. On publication Johnson would have been finished and off the ’64 ticket (reason the material was fed to us) and would probably have been facing prison time. At the time LIFE magazine was arguably the most important general news source in the US. The top management of Time Inc. was closely allied with the USA’s various intelligance agencies and we were used ofter by the Kennedy Justice Department as a conduit to the public. Life’s coverage of the Hoffa prosecution, and involvement in paying off Justice Department Memphis witesses was a case in point.

The LBJ/Baker piece was in the final editing stages and was scheduled to break in the issue of the magazine due out the week of November 24 (the magazine would have made it to the newsstands on Nov.26th or 27th). It had been prepared in relative secrecy by a small special editorial team. On Kennedy’s death research files and all numbered copies of the nearly print-ready draft were gathered up by my boss (he had been thetop editor on the team) and shredded. The issue that was to expose LBJ instead featured the Zapruder film. Based upon our success in syndicating the Zapruder film I became Chief of Time/LIFE editorial services and remained in that job until 1968.

With friends like Israel, who needs imaginary enemies?

From the USS LIBERTY website:

On that June day in 1967, the weather was beautiful… Clear and sunny, visibility unlimited… the LIBERTY, an elaborate state-of-the art intelligence gathering platform, was in international waters off the Gaza strip and was flying the Stars and Stripes. Israeli reconnaissance planes flew overhead for hours. Pilots and ship’s crew waved to each other. Then, inexplicably, unmarked Israeli aircraft began attacking the ship.

The defenseless LIBERTY radioed for help. Two aircraft carriers in the Med responded by launching fighter aircraft. Unbelievably, they were recalled by the White House. RADM Geis, then commanding the carriers in the Sixth Fleet, called Washington personally to confirm the order. SecDef McNamara came on the line, then President Johnson. Johnson indicated to Geis that the aircraft were to be returned, that he would not have his allies embarrassed, and that he didn’t care who was killed or what was done to the ship. His previous comment that “we would reply” went by the wayside. Geis, like any good sailor, recalled the aircraft.

With no help forthcoming, the LIBERTY fell an easy victim to Israel’s motor torpedo boat attack. FIVE torpedoes were lobbed at the Liberty, one hit amidships and instantly killed 25 sailors. A total of 34 died in the attack, 174 were injured.

The torpedo boats came within 50 feet of the ship, couldn’t see the American flag on the mast, couldn’t see the words “USS LIBERTY” on the stern, couldn’t see “GTR-5″ in 6 1/2 foot letters on the bow. The boats shot at white-Dixie-cup-hatted American sailors on the deck of the Liberty as the sailors tried to help one another. As life rafts were put in the water by Liberty sailors in preparation for abandoning the ship, the boats shot them up. One boat pulled a raft out of the water and took it on board. Didn’t see the words “U. S. NAVY” stenciled on it. The boats left the scene, apparently when they got erroneous word that the carriers had sent fighters to help the Liberty.

President Johnson went on television and announced to the American people that TEN sailors were killed in the “six minute accidental” attack. Sailors were ordered not to discuss the incident with ANYONE under threat of court-martial. We waited for the investigation… and for the explanations and the answers. Why did Israel attack the ship? Why did the U. S. Government turn its back on the crew members? The answers never came.

There has NEVER been a congressional investigation. There HAS been a NAVY- controlled white-washed investigation of the crew’s actions during the attack, but Israel’s participation was NOT covered. Even in this, evidence was changed, and officers and crew who knew the answers were not asked the right questions and were told to shut up when they offered information.

Other than the Navy’s kangaroo-court inquiry mentioned above, there has NEVER been a single Liberty sailor questioned by congress or anybody else in a formal investigation.

Related articles

• US Navy’s Most Decorated Ship Attacked! (buelahman.wordpress.com)

by DC Dave

On May 28, 2013, I received an email from a woman with a common Jewish last name.  The email address had a suffix denoting that it was from Australia and the subject was simply “Forrestal.”  It reads as follows:

Just curious, what is your interest in Forrestal, and why are you so determined?

Are you the one doing the research, or are other persons also doing this?

I never heard of him, btw, but someone posted a comment and it made me curious so I looked at your blog.

In spite of her Jewish name, I tried to remain open minded about her motivation for writing me.  I once had a colleague, a native of New York City, with the same last name.  His father, it turned out, was raised Jewish but had married an Episcopalian and had pretty much abandoned the Jewish culture.  My colleague was not in any way Jewish.  Even if my new correspondent happened to be Jewish, she might not have been one of those whom Gilad Atzmon in his book The Wandering Who? considers to be the most troublesome for the rest of us.  The following is from pp. 16-17:

As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

The first two categories may denote a harmless and innocent group of people….

The third category is problematic.  Its definition may sound inflammatory to some.  And yet, bizarrely enough, it was the formulation given on the eve of the 20^th century by Chaim Weizmann, a prominent early Zionist figure and later the first Israeli President.  “There are no English, French, German, or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany, or America.”  In just a few words, Weizmann managed to categorically define the essence of Jewish-ness.  It is basically a “primary quality.”  You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew against Zionism, but above all else you are a Jew.  And this is exactly the idea conveyed by the third category.

Readers may decide from reading what follows if I have accurately characterized “Suzanne” in the title of the article.

I responded to her on the same day:

Hi Suzanne,

I must say that my curiosity far exceeds yours.  What could possibly move a person to write such an email?  If you have actually spent any time reading what I have written about the life and death of one of the greatest public servants this country has ever had, I don’t think you would have seen fit to ask me such a question.  Why should you expect a person with at least a degree of public-spiritedness in him, in a putative free country, not to be interested in the assassination of such a significant public figure, especially when the ruling opinion molders have all told us that he committed suicide?  I gather from your email address that you are not from this country, but as much as what happens in the United States affects the entire world, I should expect that you would have some interest in Forrestal’s fate as well.  In fact, you apparently do, or you would not have made your inquiry.

I think that I first became interested in Forrestal in particular when I saw Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., described on more than one occasion as “the highest level government official to commit suicide since Secretary of Defense James Forrestal.”  By that time I knew enough to know that Foster had been murdered and had not committed suicide, so that fact, alone, was enough to make me curious about the true story of Forrestal’s fate.

I have a Ph.D. in economics with a specialization in economic history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  I retired in 2009 from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Skip a few irrelevant personal facts.)

As far as how I learn what I do, I document all my sources.  Beyond that, there’s really not a lot more to be said.

Now that I have answered your questions I would appreciate it if you would explain yourself a bit more.  Who are you and why do you find it odd that I should have done so much research on James Forrestal and his death?  If you are interested, I have a rather longish piece I have put together called “My Biography.”  I’ll send it to you if you give me some significant facts about yourself.

Dave

P.s.  I have the email addresses of Mike Campbell and Bill Hendon.  You might want to ask Campbell why he is so interested in the fate of Amelia Earhart and Hendon why he is so interested in the fate of American POWs in Southeast Asia.

Suzanne answered promptly on May 30:

Hi Dave,

What on earth made you think I was attacking you, so that you felt you had to defend yourself?  I think my short email was to the point.  I even said I’d never heard of him.  I can only imagine other people ARE attacking you, or you wouldn’t have assumed that I was too.

Like I said, I never heard of him.

I haven’t read your piece, just the short one, because it’s too long for me to read CONSIDERING that I’d never heard of the man.

I’m American and I live in Sydney, AU.

What I’m curious about is why you are so interested in this man, when I couldn’t EASILY find anyone else who was, that’s all.

I think there a many more important issues at stake in the USA at the moment.  Unless his death, however it occurred, fits in with current events, it’s of little interest to me.  Having said that, I am finding that historic events I have never heard of greatly influence current events.

And if you do think he was murdered, I’d rather think that it was ordered from someone within the US government, unofficially, rather than from without.  I got the impression from the person who first posted about this that you somehow think Israel was behind it.  I seriously doubt that is the case, as he was not a terrorist guilty of murder.  And because there are so many people out there these days working 24/7 to demonize Israel, I just got curious why you were pursuing this mystery.

Keep in mind, I didn’t read all of what you wrote.

Suzanne

I responded equally promptly as follows:

Hi Suzanne,

First, I do not just think Forrestal was murdered.  If you would bother to read what I have written, you would have to conclude as I have that he was certainly murdered.

Second, I believe Hugh Turley has well summed up the current relevance of Forrestal’s death with the beginning of his article on my site:

As Americans are killed and wounded daily in the Middle East the public might well revisit the May 22, 1949, death of James V. Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense of the United States.

Forrestal cautioned that U.S. oil supplies could be endangered, relations with Middle East nations could be strained, and a possible military entanglement in the region could result from U.S. support for the partitioning of Palestine and sponsorship of Israel in 1948.

Third, I agree with you that U.S. government officials were certainly involved in Forrestal’s death.  The most likely high official I have identified is a powerful White House aide whom President Truman inherited from President Roosevelt, David Niles.  Niles was later sacked because of rather solid evidence that he was passing important military secrets to Israel.  You can read about that latter episode in Part 4 of “Who Killed James Forrestal?” but there’s much more in the full article, especially the first two parts, that connects the Zionists to the crime.  They do have quite a long and full record of assassinations and attempted assassinations, I think you must agree.  I trust that you are not among those who would defend such behavior.

Fourth, I don’t think that it’s a good idea to attempt to determine what is important by a hasty informal poll of friends and acquaintances.

Suzanne responded within an hour or so, and to my mind she finally laid all her cards on the table.  Dispensing with the salutation she wrote:

They had their reasons.  But, you probably aren’t interested in understanding them.  I doubt they had much influence inside the US gov.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin

To save me the trouble of clicking on it, she copied and pasted the Menachem Begin Wikipedia page into the email, followed with this:

It’s also possible you are onto something else.  That being that Niles did have communist connections.  http://www.conservapedia.com/David_Niles

It has been said that the communists wanted the state of Israel to be a communist state.  I suppose, that would have been their foothold into the middle east.

Suzanne

With no further questions to field and with nothing further to say to Suzanne, I allowed her to have the last word.  I believe that she is good to her word that she has still read very little of what I have written on James Forrestal.  I address the question of the Communist loyalties versus the Zionist loyalties of David Niles at some length in Part 1 of “Who Killed James Forrestal?”  I also conclude Part 1 with the following passage related to Suzanne’s apparent hero, Menachem Begin:

Just eight months before Forrestal’s death, members of future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s “Stern Gang” gunned down the United Nation’s chief mediator in Palestine, the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte. In November of 1944 that same organization was responsible for the murder of Lord Moyne, a high British official supervising that country’s Mandate over Palestine. In July of 1946, agents of another Zionist terrorist organization, Irgun, led by another future Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, blew up the building where the British had their headquarters in Jerusalem, the King David Hotel, killing 35 people, including 17 Jews.

The most extreme of the Zionists in Israel have always had an inordinate amount of power and influence in the United States, right up to the present day. Criticism of their actions is much more prominently voiced in Israel, itself, than it is in this country.

Only a few months before James Forrestal’s confinement to the Bethesda Naval Hospital (also famous, or infamous, we might remind readers, for the autopsy of John F. Kennedy) a group of the most illustrious Jewish intellectuals in the United States were moved to warn the country with the following message:

Letters to The Times
New York Times December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants-240 men, women, and children-and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, HERMAN EISEN, M.D., HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D., H.H. HARRIS, ZELIG S. HARRIS, SIDNEY HOOK, FRED KARUSH, BRURIA KAUFMAN, IRMA L.LINDHEIM, NACHMAN MAISEL, SEYMOUR MELMAN, MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D., HARRY M.OSLINSKY, SAMUEL PITLICK, FRITZ ROHRLICH, LOUIS P. ROCKER, RUTH SAGIS, ITZHAK SANKOWSKY, I.J. SHOENBERG, SAMUEL SHUMAN, M. SINGER, IRMA WOLFE, STEFAN WOLFE.

Would men like Menachem Begin and his followers have hesitated at assassinating the most popular, outspoken, and powerful critic of the nascent state of Israel in the United States if given the opportunity? It certainly did not stop them when the perceived obstacles to Israeli ambitions were members of the British or the Swedish leadership and nobility. Would someone like David Niles have used his power and influence to assist the assassins, and did he have sufficient power and influence to see that the deed was accomplished? From the evidence we have presented, I believe the answer would have to be in the affirmative.

I wrote those words long before I knew of the attempts on the lives of Ernest Bevin, Anthony Eden, and Harry Truman by Zionists.  But I’m sure they had their reasons.

David Martin

May 30, 2013

Related articles

• Who Killed James Forrestal? (buelahman.wordpress.com)

The following 14-minute video is an excellent summary of the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11. It touches on many of the key points that I explain in greater detail in the Solving 9-11 set of books. Although I am not mentioned in the video, I am the person who uncovered several of the links that it presents.

h/t lifeforce and Therebel, (originally featured at Bollyn.com)

Just wait until Holder gets ahold of this news and sends the federal militia out to the mountains to put a stop to this people’s action.

h/t MPP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Obama Have it in Him?

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

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

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

Presidential Qualifications

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

~DC Dave

Finding His Inner Bobby Kennedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Martin

May 22, 2013

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