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

Down Dixie Way

Notes of a Fed-Up Southerner


March 6, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the entire article at LewRockwell.com

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

You Get What You Deserve


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

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

H-2A Kingpin Stumbles on H-2B

H-2A Kingpin Stumbles on H-2B

Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?  Part 2

by DC Dave

It reported the news exactly three weeks after the fact and one week after we wrote our long analysis of the case.  The Washington Post, though, has finally broken the national silence on the federal indictment of the man who has perhaps done more than any one person to change the ethnic makeup of this country over the past quarter century.  Slave ships brought Africans to work in America’s plantations in the 18th and 19th centuries; Stan Eury brought Mexicans—and is still bringing Mexicans—for what some call the “Modern Day Slavery” of the “new American plantation.

The alien smuggling dimension is absent, the story was written not by a Post reporter but by a free lancer in Winston-Salem, and it’s somewhat buried away on page A-16, but it does contain some important new information.  The person identified only with the initials “S.P.” in the indictment and who is the source of many of the incriminating allegations against Eury and his daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Farrell, is identified by The Post as one Stanley Porter.  Porter, The Post reveals, has already been convicted of visa fraud and sentenced to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine and is cooperating with authorities.  This is all very bad news, indeed, for Eury and Farrell.  Similar to the typical federal drug conspiracy case, Porter is the little fish that is being used to help the Feds land the much bigger fish.  But often in those cases the little fish, for pleading guilty and cooperating, gets a lighter sentence than what Porter received.  It really looks like Eury and his daughter are looking at some serious prison time if convicted.  Forty of the visa-fraud charges are against Farrell and only one is against Eury, The Post reminds us, but each count carries as much as a 10-year prison sentence.

Further indications that something very unusual is happening here and that someone, if not the President himself, has “gone Bulworth” and is actually doing the right thing for once is provided by this passage from The Post:

Criminal prosecutions for H-2B violations are rare, said Jennifer Rosenbaum, the legal director for the National Guestworker Alliance, based in New Orleans. But she said that abuse of the program is common, with employers asking for more workers than they need and requesting the workers for periods far past when there is no longer any work for them to do. Both actions inflate the size of the labor pool and reduce workers’ ability to advocate for better pay and working conditions, she said.

Being moved to different employers is common as well, Rosenbaum said. This underscores the imbalance in the employee-employer relationship, she said, as guest workers cannot go in search of jobs on their own. Employees in the H-2B program, unlike H-2A workers, are not provided housing, reducing an employer’s costs and the incentive to provide sufficient hours for all workers, Rosenbaum said.

“This case takes a comprehensive look at how companies are gaming the system to disadvantage U.S. and foreign workers as well as companies that play by the rules,” she said.

Stan ncga

Stan “hooknose” Eury

Rosenbaum describes the sort of thing that we noted in the previous article that Eury himself had been doing for years with the H-2A program, and on a much larger scale than in the case of the current indictment.  We suggested that the focus upon his H-2B scams might be simply tactical on the part of the Feds.  A more cynical explanation, though, could be in order, and it has to do with the distinctive limitations on the two programs.  A national cap limits H-2B; H-2A is limited by the ability of employers to provide housing.  H-2B pits labor contractors against one another.  Stanley Porter set up the Winterscapes company, apparently at Eury’s instigation, to get into the country as many H-2B workers as possible early in the federal fiscal year before the cap limited him.  In doing so, he made it more difficult for other users of H-2B to beat the cap.  Could it be that Eury finally went too far and had begun stepping on the toes of people with even more influence than he had?

Could the offended party have been, say, a national landscaping business that uses a number of H-2B workers and is big enough that it would not need to contract with a middleman like Eury to get its workers from Mexico?  It and similar national companies whether they be in landscaping or perhaps the hotel business would not be very pleased to discover that when they tried to get their H-2B workers, the cap had already been reached, partly because of Eury’s dodges.

Notice that the charges primarily date back to activities in 2008.  Federal investigators about that time interviewed my contacts in North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission.  One gets the impression that this case has been tied up rather neatly for quite some time but had not been allowed to go forward until something tipped the balance against Eury.  The general media silence about the indictment, though, particularly in North Carolina, suggests that the balance of power still hasn’t been tipped completely.

Business as Usual


We can get a better appreciation of what a curious—and possibly momentous—turn of events the big indictment of Eury and daughter is by having a look at David Seminara’s “Dirty Work: In-Sourcing American Jobs with H-2B Workers.” The date on the current online version is January 2010, but there is a note saying that this is only an update of an earlier version.  What is being described has been going on for quite a long time.  Below is a selection of Seminara’s salient points:

Despite credible allegations and even convictions for fraud and abuse of both H-2B workers and the program in general, neither10-Things-That-Will-Happen-If-Barack-Obama-Continues-To-Systematically-Legalize-Illegal-Immigration the Department of Labor (DOL) nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ever barred a U.S. company from filing H-2B petitions. Some repeat offenders continue to have their petitions approved to this day.

Industries that are particularly heavy users of the H-2B program include landscaping, forestry, hotels and restaurants, amusement parks and leisure facilities, and seafood processors.

Employers value H-2B workers because their legal status in the United States is tied to their employment and because they often have extended families in their home countries depending on their wages, making them loyal and motivated workers. Racial discrimination may also induce U.S. employers to petition for H-2B workers rather than employ black American workers.

Hourly compensation for U.S. workers has stagnated since the H-2B program began to expand in 2002, and economists have found no evidence of a labor shortage in the occupational groups that constitute the bulk of H-2B employment.

H-2B employers are required to advertise job vacancies prior to opening them up to H-2B guestworkers, but the ads more frequently resemble legal notices than real enticements and are often specifically designed to attract as little attention as possible.

In sum, what Eury and daughter have been indicted and face serious jail time for, albeit illegal, sounds pretty much like business as usual in the world of H-2Bs.  Another Seminara “Key Point” nails it home:

Many of the businesses filing H-2B petitions for foreign workers are “body shops” that have no actual “seasonal or temporary” need for labor. Body shops can petition for large numbers of workers and then essentially sell them off to companies that either could not get their own H-2B workers or did not know how to do so. Given the fact that H-2B has an annual numerical cap, critics of body shops argue that they “hoard” workers and then drive up the price for everyone else.

Even worse, as we have noted, they could cause some big companies that had been counting on H-2B workers to be frozen out completely because the quota was reached prematurely because of the fraudulent techniques of the “body shops.”

So what big companies might Stan Eury have run afoul of?  At the top of the list of the major H-2B users in Seminara’s Table 3 is the national landscaping company, The Brickman Group.  Brickman also heads up the list of H-2B users who contribute to Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, as we see in Table 5.  Mikulski, like Brickman, is a big advocate of the H-2B program.  With friends like the “liberal” Democrat, Mikulski, American labor hardly needs enemies.

Here is a verbatim online complaint by one of Brickman’s competitors.  I’m leaving out the “sics.”

“Just wanted to share my wonderful day. I found out today that the brickman group came in and took $185,000.00 of our commercial maintenance contracts this week. Some how they promised 3 of Buckinghams apartment complexes like 14grand brickman_logoworth of spring flowers and about 10k worth of mulch for free and cut throat prices on snow removal. Idk how they do this but i hope it {expletive}ing runs tem inthe ground. I hope people quit buying their stock. And I hope every dam one of their horror stories ive heard from their customers is true and that they do the same with buckingham.

So were about a month away from the mowing season and we went from 6 days of mowing with 5 guys on the crew down to about 2 days. And we just bought 2 new mowers. Spent all day on the phone and drove all over gods creation trying to get some contracts signed and everybody is already {expletive}ing signed. “

Seminara’s entire article is well worth reading for anyone who may have bought the notion that we really need this H-2B guest worker program to bring in people for jobs that Americans won’t do.  Seminara also addresses the alien smuggling angle in his section “Guestworker or Intending Immigrant?”  The key passage—much understated—is this one: “Sadly, we have no way of quantifying how significant the H-2B overstay problem is because DHS still has no reliable entry/exit tracking system. Anecdotal evidence, however, indicates that the H-2B overstay problem is significant…”

Justice, or Muscle?

We are reminded by the following account from a contact who used to be in the landscaping business in the Washington, DC, area, that the federal government may have a lot of rules and regulations, but what’s on paper and the reality of the situation might well be very different things:

When I started my landscape maintenance company in the early 1980s I also had considered janitorial service too.  Being near Washington and always hearing about government contracts I decided to try to secure a maintenance contract with the federal government.

There was a lot of information on how to do business with the government and agencies sent me packets of information on how to proceed.  I read all the instructions and eventually attended a pre-bid conference for a job.  There were about a dozen other contractors present and everyone was given a packet with instructions.

Everything that was expected was listed in detail.  Every service to be provided was written like a military manual with how many GuestworkersMaintimes per day, week, or month, the service was to be done.   One thing I never encounter working in the private sector was that the hourly wages of workers was established by the government.  They called it “the prevailing wage” for the Washington area.  And they told us what it was.  I do not remember the exact numbers but the minimum wage may have been $5.75 and the bid packet stated we must pay a “prevailing wage” that may have been set at $9.75.

It made it easy to figure out the bid price because one only had to do the math.  Everything was spelled out, how many hours and how many people and what was to be done.  They left one line blank for your profit, but suggested you add in 10-20%.

One thing in the bid packet I found disturbing.  There was a paragraph that stated if for any reason my company was unable to perform the agreement or if my company service was cancelled by the government for failure to perform the service I agreed that the government could secure another contractor to complete the job AND I WOULD HAVE TO PAY THAT CONTRACTOR for their service.

When I read that I thought I’d better bid enough to do this job or I could be in trouble.

When the day came to open the bids I was surprised at how low the winning bid was since I had studied the numbers.   I could not understand how the hours and workers and prevailing wages mandated by the contract could be paid with such a low bid.

I asked the government official after the meeting how this low bid could pay the wages mandated.  He glared at me and asked if I was accusing someone of illegal activity, with a how-dare-you attitude.  He added that if I knew of anyone underpaying workers I should take my case to the Department of Labor.

I left for the private sector and never tried for another government contract.

The Justice Department is supposed to enforce the laws that govern the H-2B program, but as we have seen, they haven’t been enforcing them all that vigorously up to now.  One really has to wonder if Stan Eury might have stepped on the toes of someone like that outrageously low bidder for the big federal janitorial contract.

Legal H-2B Use Still Harms U.S. Workers and Employers


Returning to the Seminara article, we are not surprised to learn that large companies are much more likely to avail themselves of H-2B workers than small companies are.  The companies that compete with them using American labor are put at a disadvantage in more ways than we might have imagined.  We see from Table 3 that in FY 2008 Brickman’s wage for H-2B landscapers ranged from $6.65 to $9.68 an hour.  We can easily understand that competing with a company with such low labor costs would be quite difficult, but there’s more to it than that.  Here, once again, are the words of the former owner of a small landscape company who competed with Brickman in Maryland:

One disadvantage I had as an American employer of legal American workers was in the area of unemployment insurance.  The seasonal business employed people for 10 months and in the winter I only retained a few employees for snow removal and paid them even if it did not snow.  The laid off employees drew unemployment insurance until they returned to work.   When claims for unemployment are made the unemployment tax rate on the employer rises and the bottom line is, over time, the employer pays for the unemployment compensation drawn by his employees.

PrintAnd if you have good employees, as I did, you want to retain them and naturally they want an increase in pay every year, and even small increases add up over time. But I cared about my employees and wanted to treat them fairly for their hard work and loyalty to me.

Employers who are not concerned about people, perhaps some large corporations, simply discard people every year and continually hire new people at the lowest possible wage.  And if those workers come across the border and agree to return across the border they are not going to be drawing any unemployment so the unemployment tax always remains at the legal minimum for those companies.

The unemployment tax is a percentage on the wages paid.  So in my case I got hit hard as I paid my employees more and the unemployment tax rate was high.

There are two unemployment taxes on wages, federal unemployment tax and the state unemployment tax.  The state tax is the most punishing.  Last year the MD tax ranged from 2.2 % to 13.5 % of the first $8,500 an employee earns.  I would have been in the 13.5% bracket on the first $8,500 I paid my employees.  For ten employees that would be $11,475 or 13.5% of $85,000.  And there is the federal tax on top of that.

I think most people think unemployment is paid by the government.  It is, sort of, but the government gets all that money from the employers.  It is a burden on businesses making it harder to survive, especially when unemployment is high.  In times of high unemployment I remember Maryland adding a temporary surtax on top of the normal tax when the state funds got low.

And the big companies have the resources to subsidize the politicians to keep the deck stacked in their favor.

Playing to Type?

However harmful his activities might have been to American small businesses and to American workers, Stan Eury would never have been looking at jail time had the government continued to agree that he was playing by the rules. But he has been on the wrong side of the law before.  He first became familiar with the possibilities in agricultural labor contracting working for North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission as a state employee matching farm workers with farm employers.  At the same time he saw the possibilities in a lucrative form of illicit agriculture, marijuana growing.  He and an ESC co-worker were caught watering his plot.  Pleading no contest, he was sentenced only to 200 hours of community service.  The ESC also fired him, probably more for the fact that he was doing the watering on company time than anything else, and he then went full time into labor contracting.

Whatever or whoever is behind this current indictment, a no contest plea this time is hardly likely to result in such a light tap on the wrist.

David Martin

February 27, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

Why Weed? A Cure For Depression


Bad news for the SSRI manufacturers?

Cannabis: GOOD for mental health? Breakthrough study claims it could be used to help treat depression

Abstract: The endocannabinoid system and emotional processing: a pharmacological fMRI study with ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol

See Also: Cannabis for depression and bipolar disorder

  • Smoking marijuana alters our response to negative images or emotions
  • People with THC in bloodstream, the active ingredient of cannabis, were less accurate at matching fearful expressions than ones that were happy
  • Study argues that marijuana may now be touted as a cure for depression


Read the rest at Patients For Medical Cannabis

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

A Lawyer’s Case for Harry Hopkins

A Lawyer’s Case for Harry Hopkins

by DC Dave

In the small world that is Washington, DC, my path has crossed, as it were, that of the venerable Steptoe and Johnson lawyer, David L. Roll, once again.  The first time, he had co-written a biography of Louis Johnson, the thoroughly unqualified man whom President Harry Truman appointed to replace James Forrestal as Secretary of Defense.  In that book he repeated the semi-official story of Forrestal having committed suicide after reading and transcribing some depressing lines from an ancient Greek poem.  Since I have completely debunked that tale, I felt an obligation to call him to account, which I did in two public appearances of his, one letter, and one lunch meeting.  We shall have more to say about that later in this essay.

Now he has written another biography of an important public figure of the mid-20th century whom I have also written about, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s virtual assistant president, Harry Hopkins.  The book is entitled The Hopkins Touch: Harry Hopkins and the Forging of the Alliance to Defeat HitlerIn this instance, I dare say that he knows more about the subject than I do, but the main problem, as I see it, is that in pursuit of his conventional-wisdom agenda it is most unlikely that he would tell us everything that he knows.  After all, thanks to my previous efforts he now knows many things about the death of Forrestal that we can be quite certain will never appear in writing in association with his name.  My means of calling him to account this time was a review on Amazon.com entitled “A Very Well-Written Lawyer’s Case for Harry Hopkins,” a slightly revised version of which follows:

When I read David Roll’s earlier book, Louis Johnson and the Arming of America: The Roosevelt and Truman Years, that he co-wrote with an academic historian, I assumed that he was the lesser contributor whose primary interest in the project arose from the fact that Johnson was one of the founding partners of the law firm for which Roll works in Washington, DC. Now, having read this soaring account of the contribution of Harry Hopkins to the allied effort in World War II, I believe that his co-author might have been holding him down a bit. Roll writes engagingly and he has exhibited some first class scholarship. I can’t think of a better way to appreciate the tugging and pulling that went on among the allies than by following the work of Hopkins as Roll has done. One comes away from the book wondering why Hopkins is not better known and more celebrated than he is.

Roll’s strength, however, is also his weakness. If Hopkins were his client, I’d say that Roll has done a pretty darned good job for him, but biography should be more than a brief for the accused. Nowhere is Roll’s partisan work in better evidence than in his defense against the charge that Hopkins was actually a spy for the Soviet Union. “Notebooks from KGB archives were published in 2009 that flatly disprove widely published allegations that Hopkins was a Soviet agent,” he writes in his prologue. At that point he has no reference, but he does when he elaborates upon the question later in the book. It turns out that the revelations to which he refers tend to disprove only one piece of evidence that Hopkins was a paid Soviet agent, that is, that he was “source 19″ who supplied Stalin with vital information from a Roosevelt-Churchill meeting. Agent 19, we are now told, was the known Soviet agent Laurence Duggan, a high level State Department official. Roll neglects to tell us that Whittaker Chambers had informed FDR through his top aide for security, Adolf Berle, that Duggan was a spy back in 1939. Similarly, when Roll informs us that Hopkins’s aide for Lend-Lease, Lauchlin Currie, passed a top secret document to Stalin, he fails once again to tell us that Currie was among those fingered in 1939 by the spy-ring-defector Chambers.

This withheld information may reflect worse upon Hopkins’ boss, FDR, than it does upon him, but the revelations from KGB documents made in 2009 also do nothing to refute the charge publicized in the recent book by Diana West, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, that Hopkins informed the Soviet embassy that one of its key agents was being bugged by the FBI. Roll simply ignores that bit of evidence, even though it has been around since at least 1999 when it was revealed by Victor Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew in The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.

Roll is at his table-pounding worst in his slander of Major George Racey Jordan, who charged in his book, From Major Jordan’s Diaries, that Hopkins provided some of the wherewithal for the Soviet Union to manufacture their first nuclear weapon under the guise of Lend-Lease assistance. Roll’s conclusion, “that Jordan either lied for publicity and profit or was delusional,” as anyone who bothers to read Jordan’s book, now available online in its entirety, is completely untenable. One can also see how untenable it is by reading Congressional testimony available on the web site of Andrew Bostom.

Once again, The Hopkins Touch is well worth reading and has more than earned the favorable blurbs one finds on the dust cover from the likes of Douglas Brinkley, Chris Matthews, Evan Thomas, James Schlesinger, and Bud McFarlane, but it is not “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” To get a little closer to that worthy goal one should at least dip a toe or two into the case against Harry Hopkins. You can start doing that by reading “When Harry Met Ivan,” “The Treachery of Harry Hopkins,” “Harry Hopkins Hosted Soviet Spy Cell,” and, most recently, “Harry Hopkins and FDR’s Commissars.”

Not only is Roll’s work endorsed by what I would call a virtual rogues’ gallery of establishment media and government figures but in his acknowledgments at the end of the book he expresses special appreciation to his Georgetown neighbor, Joe Goulden, who encouraged him in his work and lent him books that he used for source material.  Perhaps this is an entirely innocent relationship—after all, I borrowed books from the late Scott Runkle—but Goulden is quite a dubious character as revealed in part by my articles “Spook Journalist Goulden” and “Rotten Goulden/Corn.”

The David Roll Stonewall on James Forrestal

Concerning the Forrestal death, I sent the following letter to Roll on November 1, 2005:

As you will recall, during the question and answer period following your October 18 [2005] Eisenhower Institute presentation on your new book, Louis Johnson and the Arming of America, co-written with Keith McFarland, I noted that new research had shown that an observation of yours on page 153 is entirely incorrect.  The passage, which follows, was written to support the popular conclusion, which your book endorses, that Johnson’s predecessor as Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, had committed suicide:

But everyone knew [Forrestal] was deeply disturbed.  Moments before his death, he was copying Sophocles’ poem “The Chorus from Ajax,” in which Ajax, forlorn and “worn by the waste of time, contemplates suicide.”

With respect to the first sentence, I noted that those who worked most closely with Forrestal certainly did not “know” that he was “deeply disturbed.”  Most notable among them was his top assistant, Marx Leva.  This comes from the oral history interview of Leva by Stephen Hess found on the web site of the Truman Library:

HESS: What do you recall about the unfortunate mental breakdown that overtook Mr. Forrestal?

LEVA: Well, I may have been in the position of not being able to see the forest for the trees because I was seeing him six, eight, ten, twelve times a day and both in and out of the office. A lot of his friends have said since his death, “Oh, we saw it coming,” and, “We knew this and we knew that.” The only thing that I knew was that he was terribly tired, terribly overworked, spending frequently literally sixteen hours and eighteen hours a day trying to administer an impossible mechanism, worrying about the fact that a lot of it was of his own creation. I knew that he was tired, I begged him to take time off. I’m sure that others begged him to take time off.

In your defense, you said that you had relied completely upon Driven Patriot, the Life and Times of James Forrestal, by Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley for information concerning Forrestal’s death.  However, Leva’s observations are reinforced by this quote from page 426 of their book:

Given the extent and pace of his decline, it is astonishing that colleagues at the Pentagon, including members of his inner staff, failed to recognize it. In retrospect they attribute their failure to Forrestal’s formidable self-control, his brusque, impersonal method of dealing with staff, and the simple fact that they saw him too frequently to note much change in his condition or demeanor.

Though Hoopes and Brinkley do not support your claim concerning what everyone knew about Forrestal, they are clearly the source for the account of Forrestal transcribing a specific morbid poem “moments before his death.”  They are proved to be wrong on this point, however, by recently uncovered evidence.  Their sole source for the claim that Forrestal was actually seen copying the poem shortly before he plunged from a 16th floor window was Arnold Rogow, in his book, James Forrestal, a Study of Personality, Politics, and Policy.  Rogow, though, has no source at all, and it is no wonder, because it is now clear that he made the story up.  The naval corpsman who was in charge of Forrestal’s security and who was the witness, according to Rogow, of the transcribing incident, testified that Forrestal did no reading while he was on duty and that the last time he looked in, Forrestal was apparently sleeping in the darkened room.  That is precisely the time, 1:45 a.m., that Rogow says that the corpsman saw Forrestal busy copying the poem.

The following passage comes from testimony of Apprentice Robert Wayne Harrison, who came on duty at 11:45 p.m. the night of Forrestal’s death.  It has only been available since its release through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2004:

Q.  At what time did you last see Mister Forrestal?

A.  It was one forty-five, sir.

Q. Where was he then?

A. He was in his bed, apparently sleeping.

Q.  Where were you at that time?

A.  I was in the room when I saw him.

And this comes a little later in Apprentice Harrison’s testimony:

Q.  Did Mister Forrestal appear cheerful or depressed in the time that you observed him?

A.  He appeared neither, sir.

Q.  Did Mister Forrestal do any reading?

A.  Not while I was on watch, sir.

It goes without saying that if he did no reading, he did no copying from any books.  So much for the statement as to what Forrestal was doing “moments before his death.”

Actually, what we now know amounts to far more than a mere quibble over the timing of Forrestal’s actions.  On October 18, 2005, I gave you a copy of the handwritten transcription that appears among the exhibits accompanying the official investigation, along with a couple of samples of Forrestal’s handwriting that I obtained separately from the Truman Library.  These can be found at http://www.dcdave.com/article4/041103.htm.  From a mere glance one can easily see that someone other than Forrestal copied the lines of the poem.

Nevertheless, with this evidence in hand, at a presentation at the Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington, DC, on October 29 you made the statement that internecine squabbling within the newly-created Defense Department contributed to Forrestal’s demise and ultimate “suicide.”  Afterward, you will recall, I told you that you could not possibly still be maintaining that Forrestal committed suicide if you had examined the evidence that I had given you more than a week before.  You replied that you had not yet looked at the evidence.

I’m sure that your clients would expect you to be a good deal better prepared to defend them than you were to defend what you have written in your book and repeated in your book-promoting presentation.  At the very least, I should think you would have exhibited just a little bit of natural, human curiosity.  Perhaps it is that old saying about feline curiosity that has prevented you from wanting to know the truth, even when you are on record with a demonstrably untrue statement.

Fortunately, your co-author, Keith McFarland, whom you seem to have protected from the evidence I gave you, participated with you in that Politics and Prose presentation.  He told me that he was “open-minded” and that he has told his students in the past that history writing is an ongoing process and that we should always be prepared to revise our views as we learn more.  Let us hope that he is as good as his word in this case and that you and he will soon take steps to correct your error. (To my knowledge he was not as good as his word and has done nothing. ed.)

Might I remind you that James Forrestal was the leading government official warning against pursuit of the foreign policy that has us in our current mess in the Middle East?  I realize that, to many, that is ample reason why the news that he did not commit suicide, but was actually assassinated, should be suppressed.  But to anyone interested in truth and justice and concerned about the fate of this country and the world, it is even greater reason why this unpleasant news should be spread widely and quickly.  Anyone who, at this late date, has perpetuated the false story of Forrestal’s suicide has a special obligation to set the record straight.

He actually responded to my letter, and requested that we meet for lunch.  Although the lunch meeting did not take place until several weeks had passed, Mr. Roll appeared to know no more about the case than he had shown when I talked to him at the Politics and Prose bookstore.  He simply used our brief time together to ask me a number of simple questions that are answered in great detail in “Who Killed James Forrestal?”  I tried to give some short, simple responses to his questions, but the best thing I could tell him was to go read what I had written and then ask questions.  He was not at all prepared to challenge anything I had written, and no progress was made toward getting at the truth at the meeting.  I was left wondering why he wanted to meet in the first place.

From that experience I have concluded that it would be fruitless to pursue the letter-writing route in the case of Harry Hopkins, whom Curtis Dall, by the way, in his book FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, considers less a flunky of Roosevelt and more as FDR’s superior.  Dall saw Hopkins as an agent of the far-left triumvirate of Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and Soviet espionage expediter Harry Dexter White, who were themselves the agents of the one-world wirepullers connected to the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

David Martin

February 20, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


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

Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?


Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?

by DC Dave



For a quarter of a century the “largest farm labor contractor in the country,” described by an internal state memo in North Carolina as the impresario of “the largest alien smuggling ring in our nation’s history” according to Mother Jones magazine, has operated with impunity. He has done it right out in the open with state and federal government approval.   His scheme has been successful during the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the second Bush administration, and during Barack Obama’s entire first term.  Now, after an extended investigation of its own, Obama’s Department of Justice has, at long last, come down on him like a ton of bricks.

We are talking about Craig Stanford “Stan” Eury, Jr. of the little town of Vass, NC.  On Friday, January 31 a federal grand jury in Greensboro, NC, handed down a 41-count indictment, running to 57 pages, for a variety of dodges in which he and his daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Farrell, allegedly illegally stockpiled mainly Mexican workers for assignment to U.S. employers of their choice, regardless of who they were legally committed to work for.

leadimageWhat the Justice Department has charged him with primarily is gaming the H-2B program, the federal arrangement for bringing in low-skilled non-agricultural workers to work in seasonal or otherwise temporary labor for less than a year.  The idea behind it—that is to say the public rationale—is that foreign workers are brought in with special temporary visas for jobs that American citizens are not available to perform.  Unlike its H-2A counterpart for agricultural workers, which has no cap, the H-2B program is capped at 66,000 per federal fiscal year.

The indictment is for multiple instances of fraud in the operation of the company International Labor Management Corporation (ILMC), which Eury founded in 1994 and turned over to Farrell in 2008.  ILMC is engaged primarily in importing workers with H-2B visas.  The indictment does not involve the much larger and older North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA), a non-profit organization run by Eury and whose operation has garnered most of the “alien smuggling” allegations through the years.  Many of the counts leveled in the indictment relate to the unique nature of H-2B, with its cap, while the general nature of the alleged fraud is recognizable to those who have observed Eury’s dealings in the agricultural field through the years.

The fact that H-2B fraud and ILMC are targeted and not the far larger H-2A and NCGA may be regarded as tactical and not a sign that Obama’s Justice Department is merely aiming at the capillaries and not the jugular with its indictment.  Blame is spread among all the members of the non-profit NCGA, of which, on paper, Eury is simply an employee.  The target is clear in the case of ILMC.  It’s just Eury and his daughter.


The Indictment

In examining the indictment, we see the Eury M.O. at work, whether it be for H-2A or H-2B workers.  On page 11, paragraph 25, it is alleged that Eury and Farrell “falsely petitioned for and obtained extra H-2B Visas above and beyond the actual needs of their client employers for the purpose of creating pools of extra Visas.”  “It was a further part of the conspiracy,” we find on page 12, paragraph 26, “that CRAIG STANFORD EURY, JR., and SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL, through ILMC, falsely and fraudulently represented to the Department of Labor and USCIS that their client employers had jobs for H-2B workers in greater numbers than actually needed by the client employer. “

The indictment is replete with details of how the fraud was carried out, but speaking of the Eury M.O., let us take note at this point of correspondence I have received from a longtime farm labor coordinator for North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission (NCESC) one of those State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) whose thankless job it is to assist American workers to find agricultural employment and farmers to find workers:

  1. NCGA would always submit orders for the capacity of the farmer’s camp.  Many former cucumber growers would have camps with 20-40 person capacity.  The farmer would actually be requesting less than half the camp capacity, primarily for the highly mechanized tobacco crop.
  2. We would occasionally encounter farmers who said they had not ordered any workers but were on orders for workers.  They had joined the NCGA as insurance in case their usual migrant workers weren’t available.
  3. We would see out of season orders such as tree planters in July.  Tree planting is a cold weather activity.
  4. We would occasionally see orders that appeared to be totally made up in that the name on the order was not that of a real employer or the address did not exist.  When we reported this to the boss in Raleigh the order was quietly deleted with no explanation except that it was a typo.
  5. Farmers would tell [U.S. citizen] workers whom we referred that they didn’t need them even though they had signed an assurance that they would give preference to domestic over alien workers.
  6. NCGA would initiate intimidation tactics against employment interviewers who dared refer workers.  Interviewers who complained about these tactics were either given no support or punished by their employment service bosses.  This served to effectively eliminate or severely depress referrals.
  7. Dates on the orders would routinely run at least a month beyond the available work.  This caused most workers to leave early letting NCGA pocket the return to Mexico transportation reimbursement that would have otherwise gone to the workers.
  8. Our wage surveys would frequently reveal that the workers were getting less that the stated wage on the order.

Concerning #7, one should definitely not read into “leave early” the notion that workers left to go back to Mexico.  Most of them don’t and seasonal-workerssoon join the ever-growing ranks of the illegal or “undocumented,” if you will.  That’s what “legal” alien smuggling is all about.

Concerning #1, the main restraint on the H-2A “legal” alien smuggling operation is that farmers must provide housing for their foreign temporary workers.  Back in 1998 the U.S. Congress proposed to liberalize the H-2A program by, among other things, eliminating the housing requirement.  I wrote a series of six articles—the first was September 28; the last was October 18—opposing the legislation.  They are in my Archive 2, starting with “Giant Trampling Sound.”  Those articles supply a litany of ills of the H-2A program, some of which we discuss below, but first let us look a bit more at this big federal indictment.

One of my SWA contacts tells me that paragraph 45 on page 19, almost more than the others, belongs under the “suspicions confirmed” category.  He recalls numerous incidents in which job seekers he had sent to various farms returned with the same rejection story, as though the farmers had been reading from the same script.  It looks like they were, and it was written by Eury:

It was a further part of the conspiracy that CRAIG STANFORD EURY, JR., SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL and ILMC employees acting at their direction instructed client employers how to conduct interviews for United States citizen workers in such a manner as to suppress the hiring of United States citizen workers, thereby allowing ILMC to profit from filling the jobs with H-2B workers while depriving United States citizen workers of the opportunity to secure those jobs.

Some of the things that the father and daughter are charged with are unique to H-2B with its national fiscal-year cap.  The federal fiscal year begins on October 1.  Even in the non-farm arena, most temporary increases in employment in and around North Carolina occur in the summer, associated with summer vacations.  By the time ILMC could get the workers that they needed for warm weather work, the national quota could be filled.  But the Eury team didn’t achieve its level of preeminence in the visa brokerage business without being creative and resourceful.  Consider paragraphs 57 and 58 on pages 23 and 24:

Sometime in either June or July 2008, SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL met with an ILMC client whose initials are S.P. to discuss the creation of “winter” companies to allow S.P. and ILMC to bring alien workers into the United States prior to the operation of the cap.  To achieve this goal, S.P. created a “winter” company, Winterscapes, LLC.

Sometime in either June or July 2008, S.P. contacted SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL to determine how many H-2B Visas he could request for Winterscapes, LLC, for the purpose of entering alien workers into the United States prior to the operation of the cap.  SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL instructed S.P. that he could request as many workers as he wanted, as Winterscapes, LLC, was a start-up company.  SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL did not inform S.P. that he could only legally petition for alien workers that were actually needed for specific positions at Winterscapes, LLC, and which could not be filled with American workers.  Based on SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL’s instructions, S.P. requested that ILMC petition for 150 snowmakers despite the fact that S.P. knew that jobs in North Carolina only existed for approximately twenty-five snowmakers.

Stan Eury’s pride and joy achieved perhaps her highest level of creativity with a particularly ambitious job request detailed in paragraph 70, which begins at the bottom of page 29:

On or about July 8, 2008, SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL filed, or caused the filing of by employees of ILMC, a Form I-129, petition number EAC-09-201-51107, which petition falsely stated that Winterscapes, LLC, had jobs for 246 alien workers as janitors, such petition bearing the false signature and certification of an officer of Winterscapes, LLC, whose initials are S.P.  SARAH ELIZABETH FARRELL knew at the time of the filing of the above petition that the majority of the “janitors” would be used to work at other jobs once they entered the United States under H-2B Visas obtained for Winterscapes, LLC.


A Perfect Storm in Tar Heel Land

How in the world did she think she could get by with such an obviously phony visa request?  The answer must be that she and her dad had been permitted to get by with similar ruses for years.  Here’s how my NCESC contact describes the situation:

The unique set of circumstances here in North Carolina that allowed Eury’s malignant enterprises to metastasize could hardly have been duplicated elsewhere.  The usual checks and balances, such as they were, were almost totally absent.  For starters, the head of farm worker legal services was one mouse of a woman named Mary Lee Hall.  Hall makes [UNC Chancellor] Carol Folt look like Joan of Arc. The two successive heads of USDOL’s farm work investigative team here in NC were hard right-wingers who saw every dispute between employers and workers in classic liberal vs. conservative terms.  They gave Eury all manner of cover.  Pretty much everyone in my agency except for me and the guy in Greenville performed their jobs as if they were on Eury’s payroll.  Several ended up actually ON his payroll including one of my counterparts.  Lastly, you had the spectacularly ineffective, 40-year veteran, state farm worker advocate who had the courage of the cowardly lion of Wizard of Oz fame.  When he did attempt his meager efforts at whistle blowing, he was inarticulate and had trouble focusing on the central issues.  He essentially played briar patch to Eury’s rabbit.  While Eury did indeed branch out into other states, his criminal enterprises never thrived elsewhere like they did here in NC.

280318_f260As state governments go North Carolina perhaps has a somewhat better reputation than most when it come to corruption, or lack of same, but you will have to excuse me for noticing from my DC-area vantage point a somewhat familiar aroma.  In this case it appears to be corruption grounded in a strong harmony of interests between Eury and powerful agribusinesses.  As another of my SWA contacts pithily put it, “Many growers only feel that they have adequate labor when three men are available for one job.” What Eury has been up to all these years, he went on, is only a part of  “a concerted and successful effort to underpay all farm workers.”  The essential problem, he told me, is that farm workers are simply paid much too little for the strenuous work that they do, and there are powerful people who want to keep it that way.

More that I have learned about the inner workings of the NCESC further fleshes this portrait of powerful influence at work. Eury brought with him, I am told, one of U.S. Senator Jesse Helms’s aides to one of his earliest meetings with their high level officials.  They apparently got the message, because I am also told that these officials skipped levels in the command chain, asking underlings to report to them any criticism of Eury’s NCGA by their superiors or colleagues, that is to say, to rat them out.  To be a friend of the NCGA at the NCESC was a good career move; to be critical was not.  At the same time, smaller visa brokers to the NCGA who attempted some of the same sorts of stunts we see described in the indictment were invariably found out in short order and shut down.

The Larger Corruption

The situation in North Carolina gives us only a small part of the big picture.  A glimpse at that bigger picture can be seen in a quote from a USA Today article that is generally favorable to the H-2A program:

Allegations of recruiting irregularities have been rampant in Mexico, the main provider of H2A workers. Many pay recruiters for the right to secure the coveted visas — illegal under both U.S. and Mexican law — and take out large loans to pay them, according to a survey released last month by the Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (CDM).

Ten percent said they paid fees for jobs that never materialized. Fifty-eight percent said they paid fees that averaged $590 to recruiters, and 47% took out loans, often to the recruiters themselves at interest rates sometimes topping 70%.

One must really wonder why getting a visa to do what has been described by many a virtual slave labor for a few months could be so coveted farmworkersthat one would pay heavily for the privilege.  The answer is that the visa is, essentially, a get-into-the-USA-free (except for the mordida) card.  The incredible dirty secret of the H-2A/H-2B program is that there is no mechanism to see to it that the visa holder goes back to Mexico when his temporary work is done.  The natural result is that most of them, beyond any serious doubt, don’t go back.

The guest worker program has been sold to us as the legal alternative to hiring illegal aliens for temporary work that Americans are unwilling or unable to do.  But the way things are set up, today’s legal guest worker is simply tomorrow’s illegal immigrant.  While so much of the illegal immigration debate that we see in the press focuses upon people sneaking across the border, massive future-illegal residence in the United States is being facilitated by the federal government itself, and for a quarter of a century Stan Eury has been at the heart of the facilitation process.

One of my SWA contacts was interviewed some years ago by the team of federal investigators who put together the case that eventually became the indictment that came down on the Eurys last week.  One member of that team told him that he had been surprised to learn that a substantial number of the crimes they were seeing committed in North Carolina were committed by people who had originally come into the country on H-2A visas.

Most of the negative things we hear about the guest worker program concerns the mistreatment of the workers by Simon-Legree-like employers.  Matters came to something of a head a decade ago and the Mexican government announced that it would investigate:

“We are pleased that the government of Mexico concluded that the plight of migrant farmworkers in North Carolina deserves attention,” said Bruce Goldstein, co-executive director of the Farmworker Justice Fund. “The treatment of farmworkers under the H-2A guest worker program is a travesty and must be addressed.”

Stan Eury, executive director of the N.C. Growers Association, which recruited about 9,000 farmworkers this year and brought them to North Carolina under temporary H-2A agricultural worker visas, scoffed at the complaints.

“We have actually a very good record with farmworkers and think we do a very good job,” said Eury, who had not seen the advocacy groups’ petition.

My NCESC contact took a jaundiced view of the whole thing and predicted that nothing would come of it.  It turns out that he was right:

Having the Mexican government investigate abuse of Mexican workers here in NC is akin to having Dick Cheney investigate the events of 9/11.  After this “investigation” was conducted, Eury eventually partnered with a Mexican labor union, FLOC, whose primary contribution was to exact a 2% cut from the workers’ wages in return for sweeping their complaints under the rug and thus giving Eury even another layer of cover.  The Mexican government should grant him honorary citizenship because he fits in perfectly with that culture.

The abuses of workers under H-2A/H-2B are real enough, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes them in quite a bit of detail in its generally excellent report, “Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States.” The SPLC informs us in that report that foreign workers have been known to pay from $5,000 to $10,000 each for those coveted visas, far above the comparative pittance of $590 reported by USA Today, and that NCGA has a blacklist of workers who are regarded as agitators and troublemakers.  The 1997 “ineligible to rehire list,” it says, “consisted of more than 1,000 names of undesirable former guestworkers.”

The problem here is that this is the fake-left SPLC, probably best noted for describing every organization in the country that doesn’t bow before an all-powerful state as a “hate group.” Most any tea party Republican type who sees that the SPLC is against Stan Eury and his operation is likely to be favorably disposed toward him. *  The SPLC, for its part, plays along with this left vs. right game by ignoring completely the contribution that Eury has made in increasing the percentage of the Spanish-speaking population of the United States.  But we wouldn’t want to see the left and the right on common ground with American workers against the designs of our globalist masters, would we?


The Great Suppression of 2014

And that brings us to the next level of corruption.  There is another interesting quote in that Los Angeles Times article besides the one with which we began this report:

“I have long seen this as a win, win, win,” said Eury, tapping long fingers on a massive, carved Mexican table in his office, a fountain burbling in the background and his latest crop of workers sweltering outside.

“It’s a win for the growers because they get a reliable work force, a win for the workers because they get good jobs and a win for the American public because it helps cure our illegal alien problem.”

tentacles-of-powerWe have seen that the third assertion is precisely the opposite from the truth and the second would only have some truth to it if the word “good” were removed from the front of “jobs” and the modifier “foreign” were placed in front of “workers.”  The first assertion comes closest to the truth, but it would be closer still if “most unscrupulous” were to be placed in front of “growers” and if “docile and controllable” were substituted for “reliable.”  The most important and powerful group is missing from Eury’s “winner” list, however.  That is the group that seems to be hell bent to Balkanize and fractionalize the nation.  They are the ones who have never seen an immigration liberalization bill that they did not support and who never seem to tire of celebrating the nation’s increasing “diversity.”  Anyone who follows our nation’s mainstream news media knows that they, in their entirety, are the national megaphone for that Balkanizing group. (See also “Associated Press Pushes for Statehood for Puerto Rico, particularly the concluding two poems.)

When the federal government goes after someone with such powerful allies as the agribusiness giants and whoever controls the news media, one must wonder what in the world is going on.  Has Obama really “gone Bulworth” on this issue?  Does he even know what’s going on?  Has Attorney General Eric Holder even told him?   Is Holder the one who’s gone Bulworth? Or have United States Attorney Ripley Rand and his assistant Frank J. Chut, Jr., gone rogue?

Perhaps it is an instance where the “permanent government,” the bureaucracy, has decided simply to do the right thing for once.  If that is the case, one can definitely not say the same thing for our appalling news media.

The investigation that lies behind the charges goes all the way back at least to the last months of the George W. Bush administration.  It was then that representatives of the Justice Department, the inspector general’s office of the Labor Department’s Education and Training Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) interviewed my contact in the NCESC.

Not surprisingly, Stan Eury has consistently received much better press than he has ever deserved, particularly from the most influential newspaper in North Carolina, the generally “liberal” Raleigh News and Observer.  What do they have to say now that the Justice Department has lowered the boom on Eury?  Well, here is where things get very interesting, indeed.  They have had absolutely nothing to say!  As of today, they haven’t even reported the major news of the indictment!  And it gets worse than that, much worse.  All the other newspapers in the state were as silent as the News and Observer for more than a week—as indicated by varied and repeated Internet searches—until, exactly one week after the indictment, the Justice Department issued a press release.   Then The Pilot of Moore County where Vass is located and the Fayetteville Observer in the city nearest to Vass had short news items based upon the press release.  Apparently, Fayetteville is still the only major city in the state where the indictment has been reported in a newspaper.  The blackout even apparently includes Greensboro where the indictment was issued.

I learned of the indictment from the only mainstream news organ in the state to put out the news before the press release was issued.  That, surprisingly, is the “conservative” television station WRAL, where Jesse Helms first rose to prominence as a news commentator.  WRAL broke the silence four days after the day of the indictment with a midday news report.  Simultaneously, they put the report on their web site along with the entire official indictment in pdf format.  It was an open invitation for other news organs to follow suit, but none did.

Nationally, of course, the news blackout among the mainstream media has been complete.  The only alternative site other than those based in Focus-On-People-Line-Up-300x248North Carolina that has reported the indictment—which they picked up from WRAL—is Before It’s News.  That site has carried some of my articles, too, which gives you an idea of how far outside the mainstream it is.

From this writer’s experience when the nation’s press ignores something manifestly important it’s more than important, it’s HUGE.  Three examples come readily to mind: the release of the official investigation of the death of Defense Secretary James Forrestal 55 years after the fact; the inclusion upon judges’ order of the letter of the dissenting witness, Patrick Knowlton, with the report by Kenneth Starr on the death of Vincent Foster; and the attempt on the life of President Harry Truman by the Jewish Stern Gang.

In those instances, though, all the power was on one side, that of the news suppressers against truth and justice.  Here what would appear we have shaping up is something of a clash of the titans, and wonder of wonders, whether he knows it or not yet, President Obama is actually on the right side.  His underlings on the front line, Ripley Rand and Frank Chut are up against a formidable foe, and we’re not just talking about Stan Eury.  What the opponents are apparently hoping for is that without the kind of public pressure that publicity would bring, they can string out the case in court until it reaches the likes of a John Bates or a Brett Kavanaugh, who demonstrated their qualifications for federal judgeships by doing yeoman work for Kenneth Starr’s cover-up team in the Foster case.  You, dear reader, can help thwart their efforts by sharing this article with everyone you know.


* The SPLC, it should be noted, calls professor Kevin MacDonald, who sees strong Jewish influence behind the increasingly liberal immigration policy of the United States, “the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic.”


David Martin


February 14, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Jesus Christ Is My Nigga

h/t Snippits and Snappits

Check out Noor’s collection this week. Funny.

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Nihilistic Gnostic

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

~ Paul (1 TIM 4:9)

I have been asked if I am a Christian.

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


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

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

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

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

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

~Paul (1 TIM 2:1)

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

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

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

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

~JN 3:16,17

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

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

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

~JN 12:30-32

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

See here.

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

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

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

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

~Paul (1CO 12:1-3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~1JN 4:13

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

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

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

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

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

You know, like a God.


h/t zen @ just wondering

Additional Reading:





Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

Kathleen Willey Dissects Hillary Clinton

Kathleen Willey Dissects Hillary Clinton


Here we go again.  An article on the Monday, January 27 Washington Post carried this headline:  “With a two-year Iowa head start, Clinton backers off and running.” Once again, with The Post in the lead, the mainstream media are beginning to make it sound inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee and a good bet to be the next president:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not officially running for anything. But here in the first-in-the-nation caucus state that bedeviled her in 2008, Democrats are busy laying the groundwork for what they see as Clinton’s near-certain 2016 presidential campaign.

Over a marathon day of strategy sessions, the Democratic Party’s patchwork coalition was fully represented: labor leaders, elected officials, statewide and local candidates, liberal activists, women, gays, seniors and 20-somethings. State party chairman Scott Brannen was here, too, as were strategists and foot soldiers who helped President Obama’s 2008 Iowa triumph…

The organizing effort demonstrated that, should Clinton run, it will be very difficult for Vice President Biden or another Democrat to mount a credible challenge. Priorities USA Action, the heavyweight liberal super PAC that led attacks against Republican Mitt Romney in 2012, has reoriented itself to fund a media campaign supporting Clinton.

51B79Xo1sOL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_One may be fairly certain that the former Clinton campaign activist and Clinton White House Social Office volunteer Kathleen Willey will not be among the Hillary tub-thumpers.  You may remember her as the woman interviewed on 60 Minutes who said that she was groped by Bill Clinton when, in desperate financial straits, she made a plea to him for a paying job.

It was completely ignored by the same media who keep touting Hillary, but in 2007, back when Hillary-the-next-president was being made to look as inevitable as she is now, Willey finally came out with a book.  It is called Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Hillary is included in the title not just to make it timely during her first run for the presidency.  One gets the distinct impression from reading the book that in spite of the indignity she suffered at Bill’s hands, Willey genuinely regards Hillary as much the worse of the two.

Before we get into the particulars of Willey’s fear and loathing of Hillary, we must note that we can also see from the book that Willey is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Reflecting on page 25 upon her attendance in 1992 at a political function at the Middleburg, VA, estate of Pamela Harriman, Willey, who comes from a family of Northern transplants to Richmond, describes the late world-class courtesan Harriman as, “The epitome of Southern gentility and elegance.”  She apparently doesn’t know that Pamela was English.  On the same page she describes her attendance at a Clinton fund-raiser on the grounds of a fancy home in 51MU4l370XL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_Maryland “overlooking the Severin River.”  You’d think it was named for a pain reliever instead of a river in England.

In spite of her own experience and the abundance of evidence to the contrary, Willey also seems to have bought the official nonsense on the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.  “Though Vince was tall, thin, handsome, and came from the right side of the street,” she writes on page 48, “he didn’t have the tough skin that the Clintons have.  Vince took a lot of political hits and the press really beat up on him.  On July 20, 1993, he went to a park outside of Washington D.C., put a gun in his mouth, and shot himself.”  It’s even more surprising that she should believe that Foster committed suicide while she expresses very strong suspicions that her own husband didn’t.

Though Willey, when it comes to things she has read or heard, might be as gullible and deceived as most of the rest of us, when it comes to her own direct experience what she says has the clear ring of truth.  Her profile of Hillary on pp. 83-84 combines her observations during her days in the White House with what she has gleaned from a number of books.  Here it is in its entirety:

Right outside our door, the rickety elevator took people from the basement to the top floor.  We saw everyone who got out of that old elevator—and we’d hear them.  Some people we heard more than others.

When Hillary got off the elevator on the way to her office, which was next to ours, we all knew what kind of day it was going to be on our floor.  She would emerge with her entourage, cursing up a storm.  And all day long, we heard her raised voice through the wall.  Hillary always seemed to be miserable, unhappy, and angry.  Christopher Andersen, who wrote American Evita, said in an interview, “The staff was not afraid of Bill Clinton, the staff was afraid of Hillary Clinton—they were terrified of her.  She had a tremendous temper.”

She didn’t reserve her tirades for staff.  She made the president plenty miserable, too.  David Gergen wrote, “A chipper president would arrive at the office in the morning, almost whistling as he whipped through papers.  A phone would ring.  It was a call from upstairs at the residence…his mood would darken, his attention wander, and hot words would spew out….” FBI agent Gary Aldrich wrote that he heard Hillary cuss at Bill about a newspaper article.  “Come back here, you asshole!” she yelled at him.  “Where the fuck do you think you’re going?”

That’s the Hillary I saw.  I’ve walked behind her when she was cursing an aide with a very foul mouth.  Then she would see somebody who mattered and instantly pour it on, all sweetness and light.  A doey-eyed expression on her face, she’d act so sincere.  The minute they were gone, she’d turn around and explode again, cussing a blue streak.  Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson wrote in Dereliction of Duty, “While I got used to Hillary’s wrath, her ability to turn it off and on amazed me.”  She was one of the phoniest people I have ever seen.

Hillary treated her Secret service agents like dirt.  These were really good people—disciplined men and women with military backgrounds—who had a solid sense of how things should be done.  But the Clintons hate the military.  Hillary especially made it clear.  Many of those guys were former Marines and some had gone to Vietnam.  She saw this as reason enough to be horrible to them.


She spoke to her Secret Service agents just as she had to the state trooper bodyguards in Arkansas.  Once, when one of her bodyguards greeted her with, “Good morning,” Hillary replied, “Fuck off!  It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day.  I’m not going to talk to you, too.  Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.” As first lady, she maintained this attitude.  On another occasion, she reportedly ordered a Secret service agent to carry her bags, though he was reluctant to do so because “he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.” Hillary’s response to the diligent agent was, “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags.” In yet another incident, the first lady said to the Secret Service detail in charge of protecting her life, “Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me!  Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else!…Just fucking do as I say, okay?  That was our first lady!  With obviously more class than she had, those men endured her with integrity.  But I felt badly for them.

One also has to feel bad for Kathleen Willey, who one might remember was courted by the big Democratic fund-raiser and moneybags Nathan Landow, but now sees herself as “collateral damage of the Clintons” and is pleading for assistance to prevent her house from being foreclosed upon.  Her principles, which one gathers from her book moved her to reject Landow (“… his looks belied him.  He was a bully—very gruff, profane, and rude.”), seemed to have landed her in big financial trouble once again.  The sales of Target must not have gone very well, which is a shame, because the book’s importance looms large once again with 2016 fast approaching.

Hillary, the Enabler

The problem with Hillary, you see, as one gathers from Willey, is not just that Hillary is a harpy and a harridan.  The worst of it is that Hillary as a politician has been effectively sold to many women as some great feminist liberal when in practice she could hardly be more completely the opposite.  As Willey has discovered, Bill Clinton is not just an inveterate philanderer, but he is a serial abuser of women, and Hillary is his primary enabler:

5_president_bill_clintonAccording to former Arkansas state auditor Julia Hughes Jones, Hillary kept tabs on Bill’s womanizing, not so she could get him to stop or to fight with him about monogamy, but so she could head off any repercussions.  “Every time he was out and Hillary knew where he went,” Jones said, “she would call behind him to see what she needed to do to take care of it.”

According to Thomas Kuiper, who wrote I’ve Always Been a Yankee Fan, “Hillary sent out a group of investigators known as the ‘Truth Squad ‘while Clinton was Arkansas governor, to discourage many of Bill’s former lovers from going public.”  One wonders how they might have “discouraged” these women.  (p. 193)

Willey’s book is replete with examples of how they tried to discourage her, from a personal threat delivered by a passing jogger near her Richmond-area home to the killing of her cat.  One of the discouragements was delivered in the form of a chilling “look” that she got from Hillary herself.  Setting the stage, Willey was a member of the U.S. delegation at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995.  The Oval Office “assault” incident was well behind her.  This was her first paying job for the federal government, and it had come as a result of her repeated letters to Bill Clinton asking for one.  Hillary Clinton headed up the delegation:

The people in our delegation worked many evenings into wee hours of the morning, day after day, and all they wanted was to meet Hillary.  But they were essentially told, “She doesn’t have time for you.” It wasn’t going to happen.

“Well, that’s awful,” I said, always the fixer.  “I’m going to have to do something about that.”

I found one of her people.  “What’s it going to take?”  I asked.  “Ten minutes?  Fifteen minutes?  It’s the least she can do for them, you know.  If she can stand up and make a speech for thirty minutes, she can meet these people.”

So they arranged it.  I stood at the door to this room and cleared everybody who went in.  Hillary finally came in and shook a few hands.  Then somebody said, “If you don’t mind, we’d like to go around the room and introduce everybody.” Everyone stood in a large circle around the room and the introductions went around.  Standing near her, I was the last.  When it came around to me I said, “Kathleen Willey, formerly of your Social Office.” I thought maybe she would recognize me.  All I received was an icy cold glare.  I looked at her and we made eye contact, and I shuddered.  She knows, I thought to myself.  Oh God, she knows!  I felt chills.  Goose bumps stood up on my arms.  In that moment, I knew that she knew who I was.  She didn’t speak.  She turned back to the roomful of people and poured on the graciousness.  She thanked everyone and left. (pp. 90-91)

In the succeeding paragraph, Willey alludes to a similar incident that Juanita Broaddrick experienced.  Broaddrick says Bill raped her when he was Arkansas’s attorney general.    We do not have to rely upon Willey’s account of Broaddrick’s subsequent Hillary encounter.   Her “Open Letter to Hillary Clinton,” written in 2000, is on the Internet.  Here is an excerpt:


I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.

I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton’s bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering. Do you remember? You told the driver, “Bill has talked so much about Juanita”, and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill”. At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill”. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.

You can listen to Broaddrick’s account of the incident in her interview on YouTube entitled “Hillary Threatened Juanita Broaddrick 2 Weeks After Rape.”

“I think she’s always known; I think she’s always covered up for him…I can’t imagine someone covering up what a man, her husband, has done just for the sake of power,”

Broaddrick concludes.

Anybody but Hillary?

Hillary anybody but

Kathleen Willey’s motivation for coming out with her book when she did, in 2007, is precisely the same as my publishing what I had known for a long time in my article “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” which I posted on July 29, 2007.   This thoroughly reprehensible woman was getting entirely too close to a return to the White House.   Here is how Willey put it in her preface:

Afer ten years of living my private life, I need to come forward again, to remind America, especially American women, what Hillary and her husband will do.  It is not a matter of what they are capable of doing, but what they have done in their lust for the presidency.  They have wielded an ugly power over me and over many other women and witnesses.  They will do it again and, worst of all, they will do it in the name of feminism!

America is ready to elect a woman president.  The planets are perfectly aligned in Hillary’s favor, and many women will likely vote for her just because she is a woman, because it is time for a woman to be our president.  But Hillary Clinton is the wrong woman.

This is why I need to tell my story.  I know it will open old wounds for me, subject me to more dirty tricks, and make me vulnerable to an onslaught of attacks.  As an American and as a woman I have to share my story, because Hillary Clinton cannot claim to be an advocate for women if she victimizes us when no one is looking.  She cannot claim to support our empowerment when she uses power to betray us.  She cannot claim to be a feminist when she enables her husband as a sexual predator.  Hillary claims one thing and does another.  She is a lie.  (pp. xii-xiii)

Don’t expect anyone to point out the irony in the pages of the newspaper, but just above the Washington Post article on the big push for Hillary in Iowa was an article headlined “Behavior by brass vexes military.”  It was all about the recent sexual misconduct of a number of high-ranking officers, all of whom are only a few notches down from the level of commander-in-chief.

David Martin

January 29, 2014

B’Man: I want to add one little tidbit about sHillary:

Follow @BuelahMan


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

Why Weed? The US Government Patented It


The “Useless Drug” was patented by the US Government, yet, you know people who use this useless drug and get arrested. The question should be asked, why did they patent the useless drug?

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants


Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

You see, when it comes to people in our government, there is NOTHING that you can believe off the cuff. Look at every detail. Learn for yourself what the truth is, because those bastards lie about virtually everything.  Some long time readers may remember the series I did on my friend Jennifer (I called it Jen’s Update). I documented this amazing person’s fight with a brain glioma (a tumor in the brain that is basically uncontrollable). This was the last post about her.

It caused me to search for cures and had I understood what I know now about cannabis and how cannabinoids attack those very cells, I would have gladly told them about it (I hinted, because I knew deep down it would fight cancer, but had no proof).

If anyone wants to know why I keep pushing this subject, it is because I know that we are being lied to about this miracle drug and that there are ulterior motives beyond “saving the children” from this “useless drug”. If you want to know what the “useless drug” is “useful” for, here are just a few points of interest. It just so happens that the first link is in reference to its efficacy towards brain gliomas (sorry, Jen, that I didn’t know this fast enough).

Cannabis kills Tumor cells

Cannabis Cures Colorectal Cancer

Cannabis Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers

Cannabis-derived substances in cancer therapy and anti-tumour properties.

Cannabis Cures Brain Cancer

Cannabis Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer

Cannabis Cures Breast Cancer

Cannabis Cures Lung Cancer

Cannabis Cures Prostate Cancer

Cannabis Cures Blood Cancer

Cannabis Cures Skin Cancer

Cannabis Cures Liver Cancer

Cannabis Cures Cancer in General

Cannabinoids in intestinal inflammation and cancer: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=22

Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: Case-control study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494

Cannabis THC at high doses in area, inhibits cholangiocarcinoma cancer: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793?itool=Email.EmailReport.Pubmed_ReportSelector.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=6

Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease

marijuana kills cancer cells
** http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997


Cannabis Treatment in Leukemia

Cannabinoids and the immune system.

Cannabis partially/fully induced cell death in Cancer

Cannabis treatment of translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma

Cannabis Induces apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells

Cannabis treatment in lymphoma

Cannibals kills cancer cells

Cannibals regulator of Neural Cell Development

Cannibals treatment of Melanoma

Cannibals treatment for Thyroid Carcinoma

Cannibals treatment in Colon Cancer

Cannabinoids in intestinal inflammation and cancer.

Cannabinoids in health and disease

Cannibals a neuroprotective after brain injury

Cannibals inhibits Cancer Cell Invasion

And if you wanted to commit suicide with weed, all you need to do is smoke about 15,000 joints in 20 minutes.

Good luck.

h/t Blacklisted News

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

Harry Hopkins and FDR’s Commissars

Harry Hopkins and FDR’s Commissars



President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the American capitalist system.  That’s what they taught us in school.  The global economic collapse known as the Great Depression had caused a widespread loss of confidence in the free enterprise system.  Powerful pressures were exerted in the United States on Roosevelt’s left flank by great numbers of people who were attracted to socialism as the answer to all the country’s economic ills.  The various statist solutions that Roosevelt offered for the country’s economic problems, according to this narrative, were in response to this pressure from the left.  His programs acted as a sort of safety valve, releasing the pressures built up from the radical fire swelling up from the country’s grass roots.


Harry Hopkins

The problem with this explanation for FDR’s actions is that he used the power of the federal government to stoke the flames of the socialist pressure upon the government.  As Abraham Lincoln observed in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, “He who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” Roosevelt apparently did his very best to mold public sentiment in favor of a course modeled upon that of the Soviet Union.  His main instrument for doing so was the Works Progress Administration (WPA), created by executive order for the purpose of providing government jobs for the unemployed.  Many of the jobs he created, it would turn out, were for agitators for socialism, and it began with his choice of Harry Hopkins to head the WPA.

We have previously written about Hopkins’ pro-Soviet activities in the foreign policy arena in “How We Gave the Russians the Bomb,””Harry Hopkins Hosted Soviet Spy Cell,”and my review of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subverision of Roosevelt’s Government.  New evidence has come to light that raises some serious doubts about the charges that he was actually a paid agent of the Soviet government, which we will address at the end of this essay.  Whether or not he was a Soviet agent, as we shall see from his personnel decisions both as head of the WPA and of Lend-Lease and many of his other actions, he might as well have been one.

Federal Theatre Project

The following passage is from Elizabeth Dilling’s 1936 book The Roosevelt Red Record and its Background:

According to the press (Chicago Examiner 3/21/1936), patriotic American World War veterans numbered among 5,200 persons engaged on the Theatre Project have filed protests in vain with Harry Hopkins, National Administrator of W.P.A., and carried their protest to Congress, concerning the communistic character of the Theatre Project.  “They insist that it is useless to appeal to Mrs. Hallie Flanagan, federal director in charge of all theatre projects…and in an affidavit obtained by the veterans Mrs. Flanagan is quoted as saying: ‘I am not interested in the American theatre or American methods.  These projects will be patterned after the Russian theatre.’”

“In charges made to Hopkins and repeated to Congressmen, the veterans assert:  ‘1. At least 500 members of the Communist Party are enrolled in the municipal theatre units.  2. A pretense of rehearsing is maintained for weeks, and then the play is abandoned with announcement it was found unavailable, the subterfuge permitting the Red sympathizers to draw $103 a month from the Government at least half of which is turned over to the Communist Party of America.’” (page 169)


Hallie Flanagan

What is being described here is some of the workings of the Federal Theatre Project (FTP).  According to Wikipedia, it was a New Deal organization to fund theatre and other live artistic performances in the United States during the Great Depression. It was one of five Federal One projects sponsored by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The FTP’s primary goal was employment of out-of-work artists, writers, and directors, with the secondary aim of entertaining poor families and creating relevant art.

With Hopkins’ choice of Flanagan, his former Grinnell College classmate to head it up, the FTP hardly functioned in such a politically neutral fashion, and Hopkins knew just what he was getting with Flanagan, who was hired from the faculty of Vassar College.  This is from Dilling, pp. 164-165:

To quote from the Moscow publication International Theatre (No. 1, 1934, page 52):  “Whittaker Chambers’ story ‘Can You Hear Their Voices?’ appeared in the (Communist) New Masses.  This is also a story of life on the farms of the American mid-west.  This story not only had a deep effect on American revolutionary literature, it also affected American revolutionary dramaturgy.  Within two months of its publication Hallie Flanagan and Margaret Clifford, instructors of the theatre at Vassar College, put it into a play on the same title.”

Ben Blake, representative on the Moscow board of the Communist American theatre movement, in his Awakening the American Theatre, says (page 31): “Up at the Vassar Experimental Theatre the intrepid Hallie Flanagan and one of her advanced students, Margaret Clifford, wrote and staged Can You Hear Their Voices?, which told with hard and bitter realism the tale of the impoverished and drought-stricken farmers, hunger-driven to militant action to secure relief from starvation.  Their leader finally sends his sons to a Communist workers’ school to learn the basic causes of their misery and how to overcome them… Can You Hear Their Voices? Created a sensation in the American little theatre… Like an American forerunner in another field it was a ‘shot heard ‘round the world.’  It has been staged in at least a dozen languages in scores of cities and many lands.”

A Soviet theatrical performance was given in Moscow in honor of Hallie Flanagan and her work for the revolutionary theatre.  And Roosevelt chooses Hallie Flanagan to spend many millions of American taxpayers’ money!

It’s probably just as well that those plays in Chicago never got performed, considering the sort of plays Flanagan favored.  More evidence of Flanagan’s Red bona fides can be found on page 163:

The communist New Theatre League in the United States publish, as their own organ, the magazine New Theatre.  The editorial board as printed in 1934 issues includes Heinrich Diament, the editor-in-chief of the parent organ in Moscow, The International Theatre, Erwin Piscator of Germany, Seki Sano of Japan, and Leon Moussinac of France, who are also on the board of the Moscow publication, and Hallie Flanagan, Roosevelt’s head of the Theatrical Division of the W.P.A. Arts Project.  This should be a matter of interest to those patriotic American taxpayers who are supplying the $27,000,000 initial fund which Roosevelt has granted Hallie and her comrades to expend.  Hallie is also on the board of the State University of Moscow summer school for training American students in Communism in Russia during the vacation months.

Federal Writers’ Project

The following is from Dilling, pp. 170-171:

Henry G. Alsberg

Henry G. Alsberg

The Writers’ Project is directed by Henry G. Alsberg: a former editor of the revolutionary Socialist weekly The Nation; a director, in 1922, of the American Joint Distribution Committee for Emergency Relief in Russia; a speaker at Anarchist Emma Goldman’s meeting in New York City, February 6, 1934 (Anarchist Freedom, Feb. 1934); a delegate to the communist World Congress Against War in Amsterdam, 1932; member of the International Committee for Political Prisoners (Red revolutionaries), supported by the communist Garland Fund; for a year and a half, supervisor of reports and bulletins for Roosevelt’s F.E.R.A. (NY Times, 7/27/35)

Under Alsberg is as choice a staff of Reds as one could find.  One of them is Orrick Johns of the Communist magazine New Masses, who taught at a Communist Party school and served on the Communist Party campaign committee in 1932 (See The Red Network).  The New York Times (4/19/36) states that 254 W.P.A. employees are engaged in work on the forthcoming New York City Guide Book under the direction of Orrick Johns, director of the Federal Writers’ Projects in New York City, to serve as a section, when later condensed, for New York City, of a five-volume American Guide which will include guides to each of the forty-eight States.

According to the Washington Herald (2/17/36), the supervision of this American guide is in keeping with the rest of the department.  To quote: “The amazing news comes from Washington that Katherine Kellock, wife of the publicity director of the Soviet Embassy, has been named Field Supervisor of 4,600 relief workers who are preparing an ‘American Baedeker’ for the W.P.A. at the enormous cost of $1,500,000.

“This five-volume work, over which those associated with Red Ambassador Troyanovsky will have full authority, will set forth in detail the agricultural and industrial resources of every State in the Union, with maps of railways and highways.

“To put such an undertaking into the hands of a woman whose husband, because of his position, must necessarily be Pro-Russian and Pro-Communist is nothing short of an insult to the American people.

“The fact that Reed Harris, assistant project administrator, is compelled to assure the nation that Mrs. Kellock and her Red co-workers will be kept away from Army reservations, Navy yards, military airports and coast fortifications, is proof-positive that this ‘American Baedeker’ is in the wrong hands.”

One might add that the fact that Reed Harris is “assistant project administrator” and in a position to assure the public should alarm it instead, since his own Red activities resulted in his being ousted from even radical Columbia U., whereupon the Reds staged a riotous demonstration and the Communist-aiding A.C.L.U. threatened legal action, to force his reinstatement, which followed.  After that, Harris withdrew voluntarily.  He was the hero of the communist National Student League.

This is from page 172 of Dilling:

One is not surprised to learn that anti-Communist Samuel Duff McCoy was dismissed from the Federal Writers’ Project and wired W.P.A. Administrator Hopkins in Washington in vain demanding a public hearing on the grounds his dismissal “was based solely upon my opposition to the Communistic efforts to gain control of the project,” that Hopkins replied that Alsberg had full jurisdiction, and that Orrick Johns, charged by McCoy with being an avowed Communist, in an interview said:  “I saw Mr. Alsberg this morning.  We have received definite instructions to refuse to discuss the project in any way.  The only person who can talk about it is Wm. Nunn, consultant on Project. 1.” (NY American 2/14/36)

Wm. Nunn, of the Prisoners’ Relief Fund of the communist International Labor Defense, contributor to the communist Federated Press Clip Sheet Service, and member of the national board of directors of the A.C.L.U., might be depended upon to “talk” in a satisfactory manner.

FERA Workers’ Education

The objection might be raised that the Red charges made by Dilling all come from conservative enemies of Roosevelt and the liberal Democrats.  Most of what follows from pp. 206-207 is a long quote from far left journalists Robert S. Allen and Drew Pearson (FERA stands for Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the predecessor name of the WPA.):

Hilda W. Smith, Roosevelt’s FERA “Specialist in Workers’ Education,” is at the same time a member of the board of the

The "Reds" of Commonwealth College 1926

The “Reds” of Commonwealth College 1926

communistic training school for agitators, Commonwealth College at Mena, Arkansas.  The affiliated Summer Schools for Workers, headed by Hilda Smith, received a donation from the communist Garland Fund (Nov. 1934 Fund Report) and, in addition, are financed by the Federal Government Relief Fund with the endorsement of Mrs. Roosevelt. (National Republic 11/35)

To quote the “Washington-Merry-Go-Round” column (10/3/35) written by Allen and Pearson:

“When Hilda Smith was dean of women at Bryn Mawr College, listening to the tribulations of young girls, she thought she had a problem on her hands.  But now she has traded that for the immense job of teaching 1,200 teachers how to teach 50,000 workers.  Dr. Smith is a mild mannered woman of 50 with graying hair and soft kindly blue eyes.  Sometimes she is called Harry Hopkins’ ’professor of Communism.’

“’We don’t teach Communism,’ she says with a faint smiled.  ‘But we allow discussion of it provided the other side is presented as well.’

“Her job is to take teachers off relief rolls to teach workers who are on relief rolls.  They call it the program for workers’ education, now two years old.”

“Some cities don’t like the idea of having workers discuss political and economic questions.  But Hilda Smith’s staff ignores this.  They have the 100% backing of Harry Hopkins.  In one southern town, permission to use the local school house was denied.  So the FERA teacher got his workers together, piled them, plus a blackboard, into his car and drove out into the woods.  Here he hung the blackboard on the car and lectured to the class sitting on tree stumps.”

The NY American of 8/8/34 said:  “Communistic literature and radical instruction are available to students of the New York Summer School for Workers, 302 35th St., an institution maintained by U.S. Government funds, it was revealed last night.  The FERA is paying salaries to 15 teachers, and the 75 students receive lunches and $8 a week from the C.W.A. it was revealed.  Students questioned concerning the curriculum asserted they are given so-called revolutionary material for study and also have been told that the government’s economic system should be supplanted with Socialism…they asserted that teaching of Marxism and Socialism were part of their curriculum and that they debated the subject as part of their school work.  Hilda Smith of Wash., D.C., principal, denied vehemently that Communism was taught in the school.  She admitted certain books dealing with radicalism were available to the students…One of the most popular books in the school, it was said, is What Every Worker Should Know.  It is by EARL BROWDER, HEAD OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, U.S.A.”

An International News Service dispatch of 5/10/35 said: “Nothing whatever to say,’ was the only word from the office of FERA administrator Harry L. Hopkins on the charge of the Federal Grand Jury Association for the southern District of New York that approximately 20,000 students are being taught Communism through federal relief funds…In a letter signed by James H. Burnett, president, the association declared its members had first hand knowledge of subversive activities directed against the American form of government gathered through their service on federal grand juries.  The letter reads:  ‘Convincing evidence has been brought to our attention that public funds of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration were used to pay adults $8 per week to be taught communism and subversive doctrines.  We understand that there are some 20,000 such students in more than twenty schools for workers scattered throughout the country and that the graduates were to become instructors and leaders in activities intended to bring about the overthrow of our government.

Commonwealth College

Completing our brief survey of the Roosevelt Red agitation apparatus, led by Harry Hopkins, we have more on the previously mentioned “communistic training school” in the town, Mena, Arkansas, that would be made notorious once again in the George H. W. Bush administration as the site of an airport for the alleged smuggling of weapons to anti-Communist fighters in Central America and illicit drugs to U.S. cities.  What follows is from pages 192-193 of Dilling.

Commonwealth received $24,800 from the communist Garland Fund between 1924 and 1928.  Wm. E. Zeuch, then Commonwealth’s director, became Roosevelt’s chief of the Planning Division of the Department of the Interior.  His place as director was taken by Lucien Koch, who was promoted to a “brain-trust” position in the Roosevelt administration in the fall of 1935 (Chicago Examiner 11/11/35) after the investigation, by the Arkansas legislature in February-March, 1935, of the communistic, atheistic, free love, agitational teachings of Commonwealth College had been made public.

Like the “cooperative commonwealth” of Russia, which it claims to emulate, it is supposedly self-supporting, the students working a certain number of hours per day on the farm.  But like Russia, it is a failure at efficient self-support and is always scouting for donations with which to keep going.

When [Maxim] Litvinoff  (alias Finkelstein and a string of other names) arrived in Washington at Roosevelt’s invitation to arrange for U.S. recognition of the Soviet murder-government, Lucien Koch was director of Commonwealth, and the following telegram was sent to “Mr. Litvinoff in care of Boris Skvirsky, Washington, D.C.”:

“Commonwealth has long recognized Soviet Russia and its tremendous significance to the future of economic planning.  It extends greetings and felicitations to Soviet Russia’s able representative and invites him to visit and inspect Commonwealth, a workers’ college at Mena, Arkansas, which supports itself by running a Kolkoz [sic] or collective farm.  Wire answers collect.  Commonwealth College, Mena, Arkansas.”

While the wire stated that Commonwealth supports itself, another column of the college paper announced that Lucien Koch was in the East begging funds to carry on.

According to the Legislative hearings, $5,000 from the capitalistic Carnegie Fund of New York, contributions from the wealthy Mrs. Leonard Elmhirst Committee, and $100 yearly from radical Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis and his wife, four scholarships from Roosevelt’s Federal Emergency Relief Administration, contributions from various radical unions, including the International Ladies Garment Workers (aided by Mrs. Roosevelt), and individuals from all branches of the Red movement have kept their communistic work going.

The Roosevelt administration is interwoven with the ramifications of Commonwealth College like material interwoven with a red thread.

“They thought we were a little hick school down here that they could close up,” said Charlotte Moskowitz to a visitor of the school, with a toss of her head, referring to the Legislative investigation of Commonwealth, then just closed.  “But they found out different!  They found we have national and international connections!”

And she was right.  She, though still a “Miss”, is the wife of Raymond Koch, brother of Lucien Koch, then director of Commonwealth, who was rewarded by Roosevelt with a Government job after the investigation.

Still Red at Lend-Lease


It was September of 1941.  The United States had not yet been attacked at Pearl Harbor, but in a speech December of 1940 President Roosevelt had declared that the U.S. would be the “arsenal of democracy” and Lend-Lease had been established to provide war supplies to Britain.  Although the Soviet Union was no more a democracy than was Nazi Germany, they became an ally of the British when Germany attacked it in June of 1941 and, as such, it got in line for the arsenal supplies.  Nominally headed by steel executive Edward Stettinius, Lend-Lease was actually run by Harry Hopkins, who was free to be FDR’s closest war aide after serving a short stint as Secretary of Commerce.  Hopkins, with his record, was just the man to cozy up to Joseph Stalin.  He had already made one trip to Moscow to meet with Stalin as FDR’s personal emissary.  The following quote is from the highly laudatory new biography by David L. Roll, The Hopkins Touch: Harry Hopkins and the Forging of the Alliance to Defeat Hitler:

From his room in the White House, Hopkins assembled a team to accompany [his second] mission, including the controversial colonel Philip Faymonville, to serve as its executive secretary.  Faymonville, a West Pointer, was uniquely qualified because he had served in Russia for years, knew the language, and had the confidence of Soviet authorities.  However, he was so pro-Russian the War Department was suspicious and suspected him of being a Communist.  There were also rumors that he was homosexual.  When the Army balked at his appointment to the mission, Hopkins held firm, saying, “You might as well get his papers ready because he’s going over.” (Page 150)

As the [Lord] Beaverbrook-[Averell] Harriman team was preparing to depart Moscow, Hopkins cabled the announcement that Colonel Faymonville had been appointed head of lend-lease in Russia and would be staying on in Moscow.  The War and State Departments objected, the embassy staff in Moscow protested, and even Harriman was “shocked.” But Hopkins stuck to his guns.  Faymonville was his man in Moscow.

Not only did Hopkins in this new capacity give the same kind of embrace to pro-Communists that he had given at the WPA, but he also gave the same sort of cold shoulder to the anti-Communists.  The following Roll account (pp. 129-130) is from the first Hopkins trip to Moscow:


Hopkins and Stalin 1943

In his memoirs Major [Ivan] Yeaton recalled that he had breakfast alone with Hopkins in the downstairs embassy mess hall the day of the first meeting with Stalin.  Yeaton warned Hopkins of the pitfalls that lay ahead in dealing with Stalin, saying he and his henchmen in the Kremlin could not be trusted.  He strongly urged Hopkins to require the Soviets to provide verifiable information (e.g., locations of munitions plants, troop dispositions, aircraft production) that would enable U.S. military experts to make an informal judgment of the USSR’s odds of survival in exchange for America’s commitment to provide military and economic assistance.  Apparently Yeaton somewhat heatedly questioned Stalin’s integrity and Hopkins abruptly ended the conversation, saying, “I don’t care to discuss the subject further.” Ambassador [Laurence] Steinhart [sic], who overheard the conversation, recalled that Yeaton and Hopkins “pounded the breakfast table until the dishes danced in argument.” From that time forward, Yeaton was convinced that Hopkins “was an enemy of our country” and was not shy in expressing his view.”

The Hopkins advocate Roll shares with his readers no more than that from Yeaton.  Fortunately, from the web site of Andrew Bostom, we can get more:

The Harry Hopkins mission to Moscow in July of 1941 gave me the greatest professional shock of my entire career. Within hours after the arrival of Presidential Adviser Hopkins, I sensed that I was in trouble. Members of his mission, with one exception, ignored and avoided me whenever possible. It was as if a Mafia had met, and a “contract” had been put out on me.

When I realized that it was my observations, analyses, and conclusions, which I had forwarded through official channels to the Army chief of intelligence in Washington, that had caused both the British and the White House to blackball me, my first shock and bewilderment turned to anger. How could a series of reports, considered excellent by my military superiors [Note: Appendices 2 and 3 of the Memoirs contain War Department evaluations of Yeaton by his commanders, which document, repeatedly, the “superior value” of his work as an intelligence officer, which was “enthusiastically carried out.”], cause such a different reaction in the White House? I was determined to find out, and the results of my investigation are the basis for this manuscript.

Roll calls the pro-Communist colonel Faymonville “uniquely qualified” on account of his background in Russia, but from the Bostom website we learn this:

Ivan D. Yeaton, who served as a Lieutenant in the American Expeditionary Force, Siberia, from 1919-1920, and subsequently, U.S. military attaché, Moscow, between 1939-1941, was among the most experienced and knowledgeable U.S. officials on Soviet matters. Indeed, Yeaton was classified as a “Communist Specialist” by the World War II and Cold War-era Department of the Army during his tenure as a G-2 (Military Intelligence) officer. “To win this rating” (i.e., “Communist Specialist”), Yeaton observed, in the Foreword to his Memoirs of Army service, from 1919-1953,

I spent three years in intensive study of communist ideology and Russian history and language in three American universities—namely, University of Oklahoma, University of California, and Columbia University. The study period was immediately followed by two years as military attaché and acting air and naval attaché to the Soviet Union in Moscow.

Col. Yeaton’s unique doctrinal and experience-based knowledge of Communist ideology, and the Soviet Union, led him to an uncompromised formulation of the threat aggressive Soviet totalitarianism posed, worldwide, and to the U.S….

Bostom’s entire page makes very informative reading, but here’s a good summing-up paragraph:

Hopkins hagiographers, original (Sherwood, 1948), and most recent (Roll, 2013), alike, have refused to acknowledge Yeaton’s apt evaluation that their lionized “Deputy President” was willfully reckless in administering U.S. Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union. Concomitantly, they chose to ignore what Yeaton also recognized about Hopkins—his effusive admiration of Stalin’s totalitarian Communist regime, whose predatory, mass murderous, liberty-crushing “revolutionary” system was antithetical to the ideals of the U.S., and directly threatened American security, which Hopkins was entrusted to defend, not jeopardize.

Still, as we have seen, in the work of a “hagiographer” such as Roll, there is much useful information to be gleaned.  The following passage on page 133 concerns a report on the first Hopkins Moscow mission:

By September these parts of Hopkins’s top-secret memo were in the hands of Stalin and the NKVD, allegedly transmitted by Lauchlin Currie, a Canadian born U.S. economist who at the time was working for Hopkins in Washington as a lend-lease administrator.

And who, one might ask, chose Currie for such a sensitive position?  We would never be told this by Roll, but Currie was among those who had been identified by Whittaker Chambers, who had defected from the Communists by that time, in 1939 as a Soviet spy to Roosevelt’s security chief Adolph Berle, and Berle had immediately passed the information on to Roosevelt.   The details can be found in “FDR Winked at Soviet Espionage.”  If Hopkins didn’t know that Currie was a Soviet agent, certainly Roosevelt had every reason to know it, and his continuation in using Currie in such a capacity is at best highly irresponsible and at worst pure treason.

For his part, Hopkins seemed to be most comfortable with men like Currie and Faymonville in his employ…and men like the aforementioned Ambassador Litvinov in his company.  This is from page 167 of Roll:

As noted earlier, Hopkins had met Litvinov briefly in Moscow, but through dinner and social occasions arranged by [former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Joseph] Davies, the two of them would quickly establish a close personal confidential relationship.

Joseph Davies- United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union

Joseph Davies- United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union

We would hardly gather it from Roll, but Hopkins’s closeness to the infamous sell-out-to-Stalin Davies night well be as damning as his closeness to Litvinov.  We learn from Roll that Davies, who was ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1936 to 1938, remained intimately involved with U.S.-Soviet Union relations through friendship with FDR.  According to his index, the Davies name appears on 23 pages of the book, and it almost always appears in a favorable light.  Davies is right up there with Hopkins as a cementer of the vital alliance with the Soviet Union throughout the war.  Roll never tells us, though, that Davies might as well have been on Stalin’s payroll, such an enthusiastic publicist for the Soviet dictator was he.  Not even Walter Duranty of The New York Times did as much to give the American people a favorable misimpression about Stalin’s genocidally oppressive regime.  His book, Mission to Moscow, written at FDR’s insistence and published in 1941 endorsed the Moscow show trials and executions—actions that had so disgusted Whittaker Chambers that it drove him out of the Communist Party at the risk of his life.  Simon and Schuster, which published Mission to Moscow, sold 700,000 copies. A Hollywood movie was made of the book with further embellishments approved by Davies, generating this principled response:

In an open May 1943 letter, contained in the file on the film at the AMPAS Library, critics of the picture stated: “The current movie Mission to Moscow raises a most serious issue; it transplants to the American scene the kind of historical falsifications which have hitherto been characteristic of total propaganda….” The accompanying statement charges that the film “falsifies history and even distorts the very book on which it is based. One of the chief purposes of the film is to present the Moscow Trials of 1936-38 as the just punishment of proved traitors…[the film] glorifies Stalin’s dictatorship and its methods…and has the most serious implications for American democracy.” John Dewey, who had headed a commission of inquiry into the Moscow trials, published a letter in the 9 May 1943 issue of NYT attacking the film as “the first instance in our country of totalitarian propaganda for mass consumption–a propaganda which falsifies history through distortion, omission or pure invention of facts.”

Davies was also one of the major villains in the abandonment by the American government of scores of immigrants to Russia who disappeared into the Soviet Gulag.  Davies and Hopkins embraced Stalin at the expense of basic morality even more strongly than did FDR in the matter of the Victor Kravchenko defection as we recounted in a previous article:

Victor Kravchenko had been a Soviet Lend-Lease official who defected in 1944, while stationed in New York.  At the time, the Soviet embassy had tried hard to force Kravchenko’s extradition as a war-time “deserter,” and had engaged the willing intervention of Ambassador Joseph Davies to its cause.  What followed was the farce of the FBI having to call up Kravchenko anonymously to tip him off that “the heat was on” from the State Department, and warn him that he should “carefully hide himself.”  But Kravchenko’s English was not yet up to such head-spinning machinations, and the FBI agent had to repeat the whole conversation to a friend, who took the appropriate evasive action on Kravchenko’s behalf.  Joseph Davies, meanwhile, appealed directly to the president and secretary of state to have Kravchenko sent back to Russia.  The moral issue of Kravenchenko’s inevitable execution was elegantly sidestepped by Harry Hopkins, who argued that if he was returned, no one would know what happened to him.  Only President Roosevelt had sensed a fast-approaching political calamity; “Will you tell Joe that I cannot do this?” he instructed his secretary, and the defector’s life was spared.  (Emphasis added.  The passage is from page 275 of The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia by Tim Tzouliadis, 2008)

On the other hand, the three amigos were peas in a pod when it came to the massacre of the Polish officer corps at Katyn Forest.  This is from page 268 of Roll.  Up to this point, the Germans had been blamed for the massive war crime:

Katyn Mass Grave

Katyn Mass Grave

Churchill and the exiled Polish government in London believed the German claims [of Soviet guilt] were true—as they were—whereas Davies, Roosevelt, and Hopkins tended to side with the Soviet Union’s denials.  (Indeed, when the Poles exiled in London publicly denounced the Soviets for the massacre, Hopkins responded that they were troublemakers, interested only in preventing their large estates from falling into Russian hands.)

Was Hopkins a Paid Spy for Stalin?

In his prologue, on page 7, Roll writes, “Notebooks from KGB archives were published in 2009 that flatly disprove widely published allegations that Hopkins was a Soviet agent.” He gives no reference at that point, and one is left wondering how any documents, in themselves, could ever prove that someone was not a spy.

We wrote our article concluding that Hopkins was probably a spy in 2011, but the “widely published allegations” we cited were from our 2006

Hopkins and Stalin

Hopkins and Stalin

article, and we were unaware of any new developments in the case.  We have to wait until page 276 of Roll’s book to be told what these new revelations are.  It turns out that they address only what had appeared to be the strongest evidence against Hopkins:

During the 1990s it was claimed in sensation-seeking news stories and at least one well-reasoned scholarly article that Hopkins himself was source 19, the individual who either wittingly or negligently leaked the key decision made at Trident [meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill in which they decided to delay invasion of France ed.] to a Soviet spy.  However, in the spring of 2009 Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB agent who was given unprecedented access to KGB archives, donated his notebooks to the Library of Congress.  The notebooks clearly identify source 19 as Laurence Duggan, a Department of State official and nephew of Sumner Welles, who either fell or jumped [or was thrown ed.] from the sixteenth floor of a building in Manhattan in late 1948, ten days after being questioned by the FBI about his contacts with Soviet intelligence.

Roll and apparently the Vassiliev notebooks have nothing to say about the claim by the defector Oleg Gordievsky that Hopkins was in regular communication with Soviet spymaster Iskhak Akhmerov, discussed by Herbert Romerstein here.  Nor does he address the charge featured in Diana West’s new book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, which had been around since 1999 when The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin was published.  The charge is best summed up at viralread.com:

A confidential message from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, reproduced in West’s new book, told Hopkins that a “continuing” investigation had discovered that Russian diplomat (and Comintern agent) Vasily Zarubin had made a payment to U.S. Communist Party official Steve Nelson to help place espionage agents “in industries engaged in secret war production … so that information could be obtained for transmittal to the Soviet Union.” This information had come from a “bug” at Nelson’s home in Oakland, California, through which the FBI first learned of the Soviet effort (code-named “Enormous”) to obtain the atomic secrets of the Manhattan Project. Instead of warning President Roosevelt, however, Hopkins “privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting” between Nelson and Zarubin, according to documents from the KGB archives smuggled out by Mitrokhin.

We may safely say, then, that the evidence that Roll has presented does not support his assertion that the 2009 revelations “flatly disprove” the various assertions that Hopkins was a Soviet spy.  As it happens, there is better evidence that Hopkins was not a spy than Roll presents.  First, we have the recent essay of Emory historian Harvey Klehr, “Was Harry Hopkins a Soviet Spy?”  Klehr not only endorses the view that Duggan, not Hopkins, was source 19, but he also addresses the issue of Hopkins’s notification of the Soviet embassy that one of their spies was being bugged by the FBI.  Klehr doesn’t deny that Hopkins alerted the Soviets, but argues that if he were a spy, he would have passed the information on to his handler, not take the matter to the Soviet ambassador.  Klehr sees the action as just one more example of the FDR administration bending over backwards to stay on good terms with its war allies in the Soviet Union.

Still, there is the matter of the charge that Hopkins was in regular communication with the secret spymaster Akhmerov.  That one is best countered by the Russian Svetlana Chervonnaya on her web site DocumentsTalk.com.  Klehr notes that the charge depends upon Gordievsky’s possibly faulty recollection of what he heard Akhmerov say.  Chervonnaya has interviewed the man who was Akhmerov’s supervisor, Lt. Gen. Vitaly Pavlov.  Pavlov strongly denied that there was any intelligence connection between Ahhmerov and Hopkins.  One can read the interview at her web site. *

So what we are left with is apparently not an actual paid spy for the Soviet Union.  But what with actions such as urging that a key defector be secretly sent back to the Soviet Union for certain execution and undercutting FBI spy surveillance by ratting them out to the Soviets, he might as well have been one.  Hopkins’s prior record which we detail in the first part of this article demonstrates, furthermore, that his pro-Soviet, pro-Communist deeds were not so much war tactics to curry favor with a vital ally, as Klehr would have us believe, as they were ideologically driven.   With a man who had such a strong ideological affinity for them, the Soviets did not need for him to be an agent.

We may note as well that if, indeed, Laurence Duggan and not Harry Hopkins was agent 19, that hardly lets FDR off the hook—nor perhaps his closest associate Hopkins, either.  Duggan, like Lauchlin Currie and Alger and Donald Hiss, was on the list of Soviet spies given to Roosevelt through Adolph Berle by Whittaker Chambers in 1939.  It was reckless in the extreme, if not treasonous, for FDR to have a man like Duggan in a position to pass on such top-secret information to Stalin.  Klehr, like Roll, fails to mention that Roosevelt had every reason to know that Duggan was a Soviet spy.

If Hopkins could tip off the Soviets about surveillance of one of their spies as simply a tactic for furthering the war alliance, it’s hard to say what else he might have done without being labeled a spy himself.  Certainly, giving Stalin everything he asked for under Lend-Lease would fall under that category, even if what they asked for helped them make their first nuclear weapon in due time.  Maybe Hopkins didn’t know any more than Major George Racey Jordan did what all those things we sent were good for. **

His providing of accommodations for members of a Soviet spy cell, on the other hand, could hardly be justified in that way, but perhaps it could be explained on the basis of his manifest ideological affinity for communists.  Now that Stalinist communism has been so thoroughly discredited, it is difficult to appreciate how truly fashionable it was in important circles in this country during its heyday, the 1930s and early 1940s.  Eugene Lyons in his classic, The Red Decade, sums it up very well:


Like maggots in a cheese

The communist influence became literally inescapable.  Like the maggots in a cheese, the fellow travelers and stooges and innocents flavored American life.  Their professional vocabulary—transmission belts, fronts, fellow-travelers, party line, liquidations, etc.—filtered into the nation’s speech and thought.  It added up, indeed, to an inescapable revolution.  Started by Moscow, ended by Moscow, when no longer needed, conducted in absolute compliance with rules laid down by Moscow—but draped in the American flag, involving directly or indirectly millions of Americans and the government itself, it was by all odds the most extraordinary hoaxes ever perpetrated on our country by a foreign government. (p. 182)

Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins were active participants in that pernicious hoax.  They may not have been paid Soviet agents, themselves, but they could hardly be classified as innocent dupes, either.

* We also find out from that web site that when Hopkins was Secretary of Commerce, he offered a job to the Soviet spy Michael Whitney Straight.

** Roll is at his absolute worst on pages 399-400 in his discussion of the revelations of Major Jordan, drawing heavily upon #6 of the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression,” “Impugn motives.”  Taking some swipes at Jordan for inconsistencies in his story that could easily be explained by memory lapse he concludes, “that Jordan either lied for publicity and profit or was delusional.”   He must hope that no one takes the trouble to read Jordan’s book, which is now online, because no one doing so would ever characterize the man in such an insulting way.  Roll also suggests that Jordan’s revelations were not corroborated in any way, but we can readily see that that is not true by reading the exchange between the young congressman Richard Nixon on Andrew Bostom’s previously cited web site.  Among the people who corroborated them was the defector Victor Kravchenko, which gives us one good reason why Hopkins would have wanted him shipped back to Russia to be shot.

Roll’s cheapest shot of all—truly a sign of desperation—is this:  “Jordan’s credibility was further undermined in the 1960s when he publicly ‘condemned fluoridation as a secret Russian revolutionary technique to deaden’ the minds of Americans.”  Not only does Jordan’s public position on water fluoridation have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but apparently Roll is counting on his readers not knowing anything about the dangers of water fluoridation such as revealed in The Fluoride Deception, including its effect on the mind.

David Martin

January 20, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

Nancy VS Nancy

I kept waiting for her head to explode…


Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

Suppressed Letters on Adolf Eichmann and Vincent Foster

Suppressed Letters on Adolf Eichmann and Vincent Foster

Live and Learn

Esquire magazine has called it “the premier literary-intellectual magazine in the English language.” I began subscribing to The New York Review of Books and reading it rather religiously when I was a graduate student in the late 1960s.  I recall that in those days one of the regular contributors who made the greatest impression upon me was Noam Chomsky with his critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy.  Only when the subject of the magazine’s article concerned something that I already knew quite a bit about did I have misgivings about what I was reading.

As the years passed and my knowledge grew, so did my doubts about the reliability of The New York Review of Books.  If they were wrong when they wrote about something in my area of expertise, I wondered, might there not be a good chance that they’re also wrong when they’re writing about something that I know less about?  To some extent my disillusionment with the NYR paralleled my growing disillusionment with Chomsky, and I had long since dropped my subscription by the time I wrote “Chomsky, the Fraud,” “Chomsky, the Fraud, Part 2” and “Chomsky, the Fraud, on 9/11.”

One of the saving graces of the magazine is that it publishes quite long letters to the editor.  I felt that in those instances the NYR was providing a sufficient breadth of opinion for me to make up my own mind, even though they always permitted their writer to respond to criticism and to have the last word.  As it turned out, I was giving them too much credit, but I didn’t know it until I put them to the test, myself.

We shall discuss that instance later, but first we turn our attention to the most recently suppressed letter.  It comes from David Merlin of the Committee for Open Discussion of the Holocaust. *  It concerns one of those subjects about which I claim very little special knowledge, Hannah Arendt’s writings on Adolf Eichmann.  I have only a generally favorable impression of the late scholar Arendt mainly from having read her book The Origins of Totalitarianism some years ago.  It struck me as insightful and informative at the time, although I can’t say for sure that it would if I were to read it in light of what I have since learned.  My impression of Arendt is also favorable from the fact that she was among those Jewish American intellectuals along with Albert Einstein and Sidney Hook who signed the letter published in The New York Times in 1948 warning the people of the United States about Menachem Begin and his Irgun party.  Max Blumenthal recently agreed with me after a presentation on his new book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, at the National Press Club that the current leaders of Israel are the direct intellectual heirs of the people that Arendt et al. warned against in 1948.

As for Eichmann, before reading Merlin’s letter I knew only that he was a Nazi government official who was implicated in whatever happened to large numbers of Jews detained in concentration camps during World War II, that he escaped to Argentina after the war, and was eventually tracked down by Isreal’s Mossad, transported to Israel, and tried and executed.  I will admit to some skepticism about the charges against him because, among other things, I knew that many of the claims of German atrocities came from confessions obtained through torture, in particular the confession of Auschwitz Camp commandant, Rudolf Höss.

I had also detected a strong similarity of the treatment of the Confederacy in the wake of their defeat to that of the Germans after theirs.  Captain Henry Wirz, the commandant of the Andersonville POW camp in Georgia was hanged as a war criminal, but only after he rejected an offer that his life be spared if he would implicate Confederate President Jefferson Davis.   The evidence is strong that Wirz was not only innocent of war crimes but was, in fact, one of the most admirable and upstanding men to serve in the officer corps of either army.  Had the Confederacy won the war, it’s entirely likely that quite a number of Union POW camp commanders would have ended up in the dock.

With that background, we read the Merlin letter with great interest, but with little hope that it would be printed:


12 December 2013

Letters to the Editor:

I am writing to comment on Mark Lilla’s article, Arendt & Eichmann: The New Truth (Nov. 21, 2013).

Professor Lilla defines his approach to history at the beginning of his article:

“Every advance in research that adds a new complication to our understanding of what happened on the Nazi side, or on the victims’, can potentially threaten our moral clarity about why it happened, obscuring the reality and fundamental inexplicability of anti-Semitic eliminationism.”

I find this a very strange view of history. History is made up of complicating details because humans exist in complicated relationships. Details are necessary to understand history. But Professor Lilla leaps over the details to his greater “moral clarity”. He does this with the excuse that a historian is “obliged to render the mass of material into a coherent object of thought and judgment. Without a profound simplification the world around us would be an infinite, undefined tangle…”

As a Revisionist, I take an opposite view. I believe that history is rarely gotten right the first time, particularly in time of war. It needs to be reviewed, discussed and revised. Rather than run from complicating details, we should understand and integrate them into as accurate a history as possible.

Professor Lilla puts theories of his “New Truth” to use in his review of Margarethe von Trotta’s new film Hannah Arendt and in a broader critique of Ms. Arendt herself. We learn that “it can never be emphasized enough that the Holocaust is not an acceptable occasion for sentimental journeys.” We learn that, however corrupt, oppressive, and stupid Jewish collaborators with the National Socialists were we should not judge them because (speaking in the first person) “I do not know, and it does not much interest me to know, whether in my depths there lurks a murderer, but I do know that I was a guiltless victim and I was not a murderer.”

Above all, Professor Lilla is concerned with the “truth” of the film. The professor makes an amazing claim: Arendt held, “a position we now know to be utterly indefensible-as Arendt, were she alive would have to concede”. This anathema is Arendt’s portrayal of Eichmann as “not radically evil” and her shifting “of attention from anti-Semitism to the faceless system in which he [Eichmann] worked”.

It is worth pointing out that most historians share Arendt’s view of Eichmann. As the BBC History website reads: “He [Eichmann] adapted to fluctuating anti-Jewish policies, and endeavored to act with dedication, being motivated by unbridled careerism, concern for his status and rank, and feelings of frustration over his failure to achieve promotion, and over the disdain exhibited towards him and his inferior education.”

Professor Lilla claims his “New Truth” is supported by “a great body of evidence”, mainly accumulated over the past fifteen years. However, he produces only one quote from a book by Bettina Stangneth. Ms. Stangneth has, according to Professor Lilla’s footnote 2, also shown that Eichmann was part of “an international network of ex-Nazis who received significant support from within the Federal Republic of Germany”. Ms. Stangneth, according to Professor Lilla, recently unraveled the “confusion, intrigue, misinformation, and disinformation” which surrounded notes and tapes made by a mysterious Willem Sassen in the 1950′s.

In fact, the Sassen notes and transcripts of the tapes are not news. They have been public and the subject of discussion since 1991. They are rambling and contradictory. How Professor Lilla cobbled together his Eichmann quote without including contradictory statements by Eichmann is not clear but seems to involve a liberal use of ellipses. The most interesting new information about Sassen raised by Ms. Stangneth is a draft letter dated 1956 and supposedly sent by Mr. Eichmann from Argentina to the West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, proposing that Eichmann return to Germany to stand trial. If true, that is a complicating detail indeed.

How did Eichmann trick Arendt into believing what was “utterly indefensible”? Like the Devil, Eichmann was a master of falsehood and disguise. Professor Lilla writes: “Arendt was not alone in being taken in by Eichmann and his many masks.”

Professor Lilla’s “New Truth” aside, there are many “complications” which support the belief that Eichmann “adapted to fluctuating anti-Jewish policies.” For example, we know that Eichmann worked with Jewish American groups in the late 1930′s to help tens of thousands of Austrian Jews leave German control. In 1937 he traveled to British-controlled Palestine to discuss the possibility of large scale Jewish emigration to the Middle East, but returned without success due to British resistance. In 1940 Eichmann worked on the Madagascar Plan. None of these plans were “eliminationist”. They represented successive guidelines followed by German bureaucracy, followed in turn by Eichmann.

Eichmann’s collaboration with Rudolf Kastner in 1944 resulted in at least 18,000 Hungarian Jews being sent to the Strasshof family camp near Vienna, and Eichmann originally spoke of transferring 100,000 people there. Most of the Strasshof detainees survived the War. One could discuss the role of Eichmann in the light of works like Christopher R. Browning’s The Origins of the Final Solution, or Professor Arno Mayer’s Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, but suffice it to say that there truly is a “great body of evidence” which shows Mr. Eichmann had no role in formulating an “eliminationist” plan.

Professor Lilla seems to be a man with strong views on what is or is not a proper subject for a film, or what is or is not an acceptable excuse for crimes of collaboration. Those are moral or artistic judgments and I suppose those held by Professor Lilla’s are as good as mine. But I believe it is hazardous for all when a professor feels justified in handing us a “profoundly simplified” account of history designed to protect (his) “moral clarity”. And I feel constrained to dispute Professor Lilla’s claim to being the holder of such an exclusive “New Truth”.

Thank you for consideration of my letter.

David Merlin

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

On December 19, 2013, the NYR did print a long letter that was critical of Lilla’s article, but Merlin’s letter did not see the light of day.  Lilla’s response droned on at even greater length, but neither he nor the critic, Roger Berkowitz, got nearly as close to the fundamental question of Eichmann’s guilt as did Merlin.

The Foster Letter

That was the sort of treatment that I was expecting when I wrote my letter on May 7, 1996, on the subject of the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.  My belief was that the facts that I assembled were so strong that no matter how much space they gave to the writer, Northwestern University professor Garry Wills, there was no way that he would be able to rebut me.  Here is the letter:


Dear Editor:

Although I have been a reader of your magazine for many years, I must admit that I am not much of a fan of one of your regular contributors, Garry Wills. My opinion has never been so well confirmed as it was by his recent review article, “The Clinton Scandals.” In spite of its considerable length, the article is still almost childishly superficial, and it could hardly have been more one-sided in its defense of the suspicious behavior of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Like most of the reviewers that the general public gets to read, Wills professes to be quite favorably impressed with James Stewart’s Blood Sport, especially the part I find weakest and most objectionable. Wills writes that “Stewart is very good on the character and situation of Vincent Foster…” and states confidently that he “rightly rejects all conspiratorial nonsense about Foster’s death.”

One would expect that the historian Wills would have done at least a tiny bit of primary research before pronouncing such a bold, blanket exculpation. Had he done so, he would have found that every single source that Stewart used to attest to Foster’s general nature and to his specific state of mind shortly before his death is either someone who has, on the record, changed his story, or someone who chooses to remain anonymous. There are several of each, but the most notable example of the former is the supposed force behind Stewart’s book, the memory-challenged Clinton confidante, Susan Thomases. The top example of the latter, in all likelihood, is the composer or composers of the disjointed, peevish, sophomoric, fingerprintless note belatedly “discovered” curiously tumbling in torn-up pieces out of Foster’s previously-searched briefcase, a note which Stewart, Wills, and the authorities choose to treat, without any foundation to date that would begin to stand up in court, as authentic.

Taking the known story-changer first, Ms. Thomases is the source of the indelicate and incredible new revelation in Stewart’s book that the gentlemanly and very private Foster confided to her, of all people, when they were alone together of an evening in her O Street rooming house scarcely a week before his death, that he held his wife of more than 25 years and mother of their three children in virtual contempt. Do I exaggerate? This is straight from the book:

“But then the conversation took a curious turn. One thing he had not missed about his life in Little Rock was Lisa, his wife. The marriage had not been what he’d hoped for, and it hadn’t been for years. She was completely dependent on him, and this had become a burden. He found he couldn’t confide in her. Lisa’s recent arrival in Washington had brought this to the fore, just when Foster needed someone to lean on.

“Thomases didn’t know what to say. Foster seemed calm, dignified—but infinitely sad.”

And they say it’s the skeptics who don’t care about the feelings of the Foster family.

The fact that Vincent Foster had to be savvy enough to realize how it would certainly be taken for him to run down his wife after nightfall in the privacy of another woman’s boudoir, even if he didn’t mean it that way, is reason enough to doubt firmly that this extraordinary conversation ever took place. The fact that Ms. Thomases neglected to tell the FBI about it when they interviewed her as a part of Robert Fiske’s investigation is another strong reason to doubt it. What she told her FBI interviewers is that she last saw Foster on the previous Wednesday or Thursday, about the time of the belatedly reported nocturnal tete a tete, but she believes they had lunch together with some other people. “She noted no change in his demeanor or physical appearance…His death came as a complete shock to her and she can offer no reason or speculation as to why he may have taken his life.” And that would include marital difficulties, we must infer.

Their face-value acceptance of the torn-up note as the work of Foster is even more damning of both Stewart and Wills. Both quote from it to show how wrought up Foster was about the travel office mess. Anyone with an iota of skepticism in his makeup, in light of the way in which the note turned up and the quality of the text, would have been suspicious of it, and one would have hoped that would include the investigating police. Suspicions should have been heightened when no photocopy of the note was released to the public or the press and longtime Clinton associate and Foster family lawyer James Hamilton wrote Attorney General Janet Reno pleading that the original note be given to the family for sentimental reasons and praising her decision not to release photocopies.

A rigorous evaluation of the note by detached, dispassionate experts was certainly in order. So what did the Park Police do? They located an uncertified, now-retired sergeant in the Capitol Hill Police who claimed some skill in handwriting analysis and gave him one and only one putatively known sample of Foster’s writing for comparison. To absolutely no one’s surprise, he pronounced the note authentic.

In spite of the government’s best efforts at suppression, an actual copy of the original note did eventually leak out to the Wall Street Journal, which published it. Strategic Investment newsletter then hired three recognized experts and supplied each with a minimum of 10 known Foster handwriting samples taken from Senate hearing documents on the case. On October 25 last year they held a news conference in a ballroom of the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, and explained in great detail why each had independently concluded that the note was an obvious forgery.

In legal language, the finding of those experts now represents the best evidence as to the authenticity of the not-quite-suicide note. I’m sure that Professor Wills would reply that the newsletter involved is part of that ultra-conservative “Foster Factory,” as the Wills-referenced March/April, 1996, Columbia Journalism Review called it, partly funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, who also supports the dogged reporter, Christopher Ruddy.** Interestingly, the CJR, as much as it tried to give a sinister cast to Scaife’s activities, neglected to mention this finding or the funding of the handwriting experts, one of whom, Reginald Alton, professor emeritus of English at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, is perhaps the foremost authenticator of literary manuscripts in the world. One can only suspect that they, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the major news magazines and broadcast networks chose to suppress this truly monumental news because they simply had no way to explain it away.

Finally, I would remind the historian, Wills, that it was, after the passage of several years, the revelation of the forgery of something called the Panizzardi letter that finally blew open the Dreyfus Affair in turn-of-the-century France. We hear it said in case after case that for there really to be a conspiracy and cover-up too many people would have to be in on it. I wonder if Professor Wills might hazard a guess as to how many score French officials and news people were ultimately in on the framing of Captain Dreyfus.


David Martin

In this instance the NYR did not pick out a letter or two for Wills to respond to.  Not only did it not print my letter, but, in an unprecedented move, it allowed Wills simply to characterize—or more correctly mischaracterize—the letters that it had received and to rebut those straw men.  At that point it became clear to me that the editors of The New York Review of Books were simply pursuing an agenda and that agenda had nothing to do with the truth.

Apparently, nothing has changed at the NYR.  The official propaganda line is that Vince Foster murdered himself, and the wealth of evidence to the contrary is simply to be ignored.  Similarly, the official propaganda line is that Adolf Eichmann, like all high level Nazis, was simply an unfathomably inhuman monster and messy facts to the contrary are to be dismissed.

* I suspect that “David Merlin” is a pen name, perhaps for CODOH director, Bradley Smith, himself.  Merlin appears not to exist apart from CODOH on the Internet.  The letter to the NYR, though, appears to stand upon its own merit, apart from the credentials of its writer.

** My opinion of the journalist Ruddy plunged shortly after I wrote that letter.  One may follow the plunge by reading parts 2 and 5 of my “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster.”  Short samples of the evidence against Ruddy can be found in the 1999 articles “Fake Clinton Critic Ruddy” and “More Ruddy Trickery.”

David Martin

January 3, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

Pot Possession’s Epiphany Generator

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


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

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

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

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

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

You phony.


“An Epiphany”

Katz said that the possession ticket was an epiphany:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We’re all criminals? This is ridiculous”

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

He went further and said that the arrest:

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

AHA! The money quote


The Next Great American Industry

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

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

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

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

h/t Smellthetruth

Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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

B’Man’s Redneck Watch: Vagina or Anus?


Maybe its just a redneck thing, but I happen to like Phil Robertson (and the show, which is one of the few programs that I watch). Even if I don’t agree 100% with his theological insight, I think he should keep being Phil and tell A&E to bite one.

Why? Because when GQ interviewed him, he said:

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Now, A&E has suspended Phil for his comments. Why? I speculate that A&E must really love them some gays… or something. Because financially, this is a very stupid thing to do, especially since they have brought A&E 14,000,000 viewers per week (which for that particular shitty network, this is something they should never in a million years have kowtowed to political correctness over). I guarantee you that of those 14M, not very many are gays or Jews. Bitching and punishing Phil for voicing his opinion (which is his Constitutional rights) is just plain stupid. And it will cost them because the outrage is building.

So, I suspect that when the Jews who run the show figure out (they aren’t as smart as their media clowns keep insisting, themselves mostly Jews, btw), they will quickly realize how much money they will lose. And, Christ knows, these Jews LOVE them some money even more than they fake loving the gays.

Phil don’t cut no slack. Not long ago, when he was almost censored for praying “in Jesus name”, he basically told them to pound salt. And the network backed down. Funny, Jews love them some gays far more than they love Jesus, yet they banned him for talking about what is evident to me as a man.

There is not a man’s ass in this world that would ever be preferable to a woman’s parts. (Do I really need to write that?)

So, Phil: from one redneck to another…

I salute you for your candor and beliefs.


Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

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