B’Man’s Hypocrite Watch: The Tribe

The Tribe

They say we’re obsessed with race,
What we see is a classic case
DC Dave
roofdylann_062015

Dylann Storm Roof

As I pointed out yesterday, there is a reinvigorated attack on white people due to the Roof psyop. The Jewish owned and run media is giving us the repetitive salvo, but as DC Dave points out in the poem, it really is projection because these people are some of the most racist to exist on the planet. This is no secret, except to major news entities who actively hide the fact and to the gullible public that pays attention to them.

Obama black and weak Mozes

Judy doesn’t like a schvartze

Sometimes they get caught, especially when they are in the limelight, as did Judy Mozes, the wife of Israeli Interior Minister Silvan Shalomin (as noticed in The Hill). She was forced to apologize. But this isn’t anything new or infrequent. They don’t like a schvartze (unless, of course, they are forcing “multiculturalism” on us, while hypocritically keeping them out of Israel).

ethiopiajewsInterior Minister Eli Yishai vowed Thursday to exert every effort to see that “the last of the infiltrators return to their countries,” referring to the some 50,000 African economic migrants, asylum seekers and refugees currently in Israel.

Speaking with Army Radio, Yishai dismissed the notion that Sudanese, Eritreans and other Africans in Israel have any standing to seek political asylum. “These are not refugees, these are economic migrants who want to come to Israel for work,” he said.

Their presence “is an existential threat” to the State of Israel, he asserted, vowing to “defend the Jewish majority.” The interior minister added, “Each and every one of them will return to their countries.”

infiltrators

Netanyahu said of the infiltrator problem, “Israel is a small country. We cannot allow ourselves to be flooded by illegal work infiltrators. This threatens our society, our economy and our security. Therefore, we must expedite our dealing with the problem.”

While keeping Israel “Jewish”, Jews are forcing integration (both here in the US and in Europe).

The Scholar also provides numbers to prove the hypocrisy of Netanyahu:

England is smaller. Logically, we shouldn’t take any “Boat People”.
Population of Israel = 8.296 million.
Population of England (stats about 20m lower than reality for whole of UK) = 54.657 million.

And who could forget Barbara Lerner Spectre as she boldly tells us that Jews are leading the way in the forced integration/multiculturalism?

You can get a better glimpse of this rampant racism by Jewish leaders in David Duke’s video (they don’t just hate blacks, they hate everyone):

This race baiting/divide is all explained in the “forgery” known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Remember all of this every time you hear about white racists and the need for multiculturalism. There is an agenda, but the Jews don’t actually believe it for themselves.

Wonder why that is?

h/t Disenchanted Scholar and DC Dave

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

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

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


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

Cancer Myths And How The Miracle Medicine Works

The cancer industry is just that… Industry (as in a commercial enterprise)

Cancer is often considered a by product of our environment and food intake (among other potential causation). It is evident that something has caused a humungous rise in cancers and deaths over the past one hundred years (or more) and the notion that genetics, alone, as the main cause cannot be true. It is a man-made phenomena:

‘In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare.

‘There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

‘The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.

‘Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.’

Follow The Money

I also subscribe to the idea that one should follow the money, and the fact is that the cancer industry is Big Money. This same Doctor explained in a Wall Street Journal article:

“These drugs cost too much,” Leonard Saltz, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said in a speech heard by thousands of doctors here for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Saltz’s remarks focused mainly on an experimental melanoma treatment made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. , but he also criticized pricing more widely. He cited statistics showing that the median monthly price for new cancer drugs in the U.S. had more than doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars from $4,716 in the period from 2000 through 2004 to roughly $9,900 from 2010 through 2014. Dr. Saltz cited studies showing that the price increases haven’t corresponded to increases in the drugs’ effectiveness.

“Cancer-drug prices are not related to the value of the drug,” Dr. Saltz said. “Prices are based on what has come before and what the seller believes the market will bear.”

The thing about Big Money is that they will lie with abandon just to continue making the buck (irregardless of the harm done).

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

Every now and again, guilt of complicity takes a hold of a few and the decent ones will explain the corruption (much to the chagrin of others caught up in the lies).

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.

Cancer Industry Myths Versus Facts

There are 5 basic facts that the cancer industry promotes as myths (see at Prevent Disease):

    1. The rise in all types of cancer is due to modern diet, lifestyle, and environment. Records of lifespan prior to the 18th century are scarce, but in all records of studied prehistoric skeletons, only 200 cases of possible cancer have been found. However, from 1900-2011, cancer deaths have increased 3 foldOne researcher found that in 80% of processed food, 4 main ingredients are found which harm immunity: corn, wheat, soy, and meat.
    2. Superfoods and herbs can prevent cancer. This is true in many cases. In fact, there are 17 herbs and spices which in their own right are considered super-foods, and have been scientifically proven to prevent and treat cancer.
    3. Acidic diets cause cancer. Blood pH should be within a range of 7.3 to 7.41. If the pH is lower than that range, acidosis occurs, which leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis (below 7.0) can cause coma and death. If the pH rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis. Keeping the body closer to an alkaline state (up to .05) can make a significant difference in cancer growth or suppression. Cancer cells can’t live in an alkaline environment.
    4. Sugar feeds cancer. A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients. Another epidemiological study covering 21 modern countries (Europe, North America, Japan and others) found that sugar intake is a strong risk factor for higher breast cancer rates, especially in older women.
    5. Conventional cancer treatment kills more than it cures. Five year relative survival rates for cancer are standard because after 5 years, many patients’ conditions worsen. More accurate long-term statistics would reflect ten years or more, as well as data on cost-effectiveness, immune system impact, quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. When these factors are considered, chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival.

How The Miracle Medicine Actually Works

As long as we continue to believe these myths hiding as the “industry’s” facts, we will continue to get sick and die at alarming rates. But I would not be complete without addressing other “myths”, especially regarding the usage of cannabis. I address these myths and lies about medical cannabis often (and that barely covers all the posts on the subject here).

Even though we are seeing that some of the Industry is being forced to admit that there are medical benefits to cannabis, they are still trying to make money from it. Tactics include deriving certain compounds from the plant and synthesizing it into product. They minimize certain other compounds that also have wonderful benefits, even to the point of perpetuating the idea of illegality, except for their “product”. THC is a prime example of this bait and switch.

All of us have heard about the usage and promotion of CBD’s. The media and government pushes it to no end and many states are enacting laws to make this substance available, especially “for the children”. Yes, high CBD oils DO, in fact, stop deadly cancers, as seen in this presentation (but that does not mean that the THC contained in that oil was not helpful).

I am not poo-pooing CBD’s, especially in natural forms. But the fact is that THC, the demonized constituent (because it gets you high), is also as much, if not more so, medically effectual.

Case in point is how THC attacks breast cancer cells and KILLS them.

THC has the miraculous capacity to help those who suffer from cancer. The wonder compound increases appetite, reduces nausea and can even help to quell pains that patients suffer from cancer and its unpleasant list of symptoms. However, despite the numerous findings and studies that have been published about this, cannabis is still vilified by the government and kept federally illegal.

A clip from documentary called “Clearing the Smoke” depicts a microscopic view of cancer cells that have had THC administered to them, which causes the malignant cells to weaken and eventually die completely.

In the beginning of the video, the malignant cancer cells are seen quickly moving under the lens of the microscope. But as the THC molecules begin to affect them, they turn blue and begin to slow down. Eventually they cease moving completely and some can even be seen dying from the effects of the THC near the end of the clip.

The video itself is fantastic visual evidence that THC, even administered in low doses (as was depicted), can be a highly-effective tool in the ongoing fight against cancer.

News as exciting as this is not something new to the federal government; in fact, a study that was published in the August 18, 1974 issue of the Washington Post reported finding that THC “slowed the growth of lung cancer, breast cancers, and virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives as much as 36 percent.”

The results themselves read: “Animals treated for 10 consecutive days with delta-9-THC, beginning the day after tumor implantation, demonstrated a dose-dependent action of retarded tumor growth. Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with delta-8-THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.”

The study was conducted by a team of researchers at the Medical College of Virginia acting on the behalf of the federal government. Unfortunately, the government was unhappy with the results and had U.S. officials dismiss the study completely and buried it under the Watergate scandal. The findings were eventually published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute a year later.

No new reports of findings regarding THC and cancer surfaced after this study until a clinical trial that was conducted in the mid-1990s. This study was conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology program and worked off a $2 million federal budget.

The clinical trials gave very similar results: “that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods experienced greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.”

Even tests conducted throughout the world have found similar results to these. In 1998, researchers at Madrid’s Complutense University released a study that concluded that by administering THC to malignant brain tumor cells, the doctors were able to selectively induce apoptosis, or planned cell death. This allowed the researchers to systematically kill individual cancer cells without harming any of the nearby healthy cells.

And yet government officials and politicians have been adamant in keeping the law the same and condemning cannabis to be federally illegal, making this form of treatment an impossibility for a majority of U.S. cancer patients.

Hopefully this video will be enough visual and scientific proof that THC can be beneficial to be used by those suffering from cancer. At the very least, it may be able to save a few lives from suffering and bring new hope to those who are fighting cancer.

 Disregard Their Lies

Next time you hear the talking heads and profiteers demonize THC, remember the truth. When they say it is the gateway drug, understand that they have an ulterior motive. Remember that using the entire plant is much more efficient than the constituents alone (especially the synthetics). Remember that the Industrial Prison Complex and other criminal organizations (such as police forces who would rather arrest plant users than arrest rapists and murderers) have a vested interest in keeping the miracle medicine out of your hands. Remember the ability for these very criminals in blue to take your hard earned money (and even vibrators) in asset forfeiture.

h/t Waking Times and Patients For Medical Cannabis

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

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

Did We Pull the Plug on the Shah?

Did We Pull the Plug on the Shah?

by DC Dave

Benjamin_Disraeli_by_Cornelius_Jabez_Hughes,_1878 Sidonia quote

Benjamin Disraeli, describing the sage Jewish financier Sidonia in his classic novel, Coningsby.

“Surely, your majesty, you’re not telling me that the Jewish lobby in the United States pulls the strings of the presidency.”

Shah_of_iran

Shah of Iran

Thus begins an extraordinary 1976 interview by the Jewish Mike Wallace of CBS of the Shah of Iran. It’s really quite amusing to hear the tone of fake incredulity in Wallace’s voice as the Shah makes observations about Jewish power in the United States that most people these days would accept as fairly commonplace, though seldom spoken so openly. Powerful Jewish interests controlling the media and banks and pressuring politicians? Heaven forfend!

Now consider that this was America’s “great ally” in the Middle East, a man widely regarded as our puppet, whom we installed in power after orchestrating, along with the British, the overthrow of the elected president Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It certainly looks like he was straying pretty far off the reservation here.

Listening to the Shah’s words in retrospect, we can’t help but think of what happened to CNN anchor Rick Sanchez when he made a much more cautious statement about Jewish media power in an unguarded moment, before a far smaller audience. He was gone in a heartbeat, as if to prove the truth of what he had to say. Could the Shah’s words to Wallace have sealed his fate in a similar way?

But the Rick Sanchez newsreader types of this world are a dime a dozen and easily replaceable, I hear you say. The Shah was the

Mosaddegh in imperial court in 1955 Tehran

Mosaddegh in imperial court in 1955 Tehran

bastion against the menace of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Look at what replaced him.

Exactly! Look at what has replaced Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq and would no-doubt replace Bashar al-Assad in Syria should we have our way and he were to be brought down. The very fact that the United States has been instrumental in bringing down two strongmen who had been our allies when it suited us, as we were more consistently with the Shah, is another powerful reason for taking a more serious look at what really happened in the fall of the Shah of Iran.

That more serious look, to my mind, virtually begins and ends with a trenchant essay entitled “The British and U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini into Power in 1979,” posted on a web site called The Excavator on November 3, 2011 by Saman Mohammadi. Everyone who desires a better understanding of what is going on in the Middle East currently, and is likely to happen in the future, should read that essay. The article begins:

divideandconquer

The thesis that the British and U.S. governments drove out the Shah and replaced him with Khomeini destroys the clash of civilizations myth that has dominated the global conversation between Islam and the West for over a generation.

For years I thought this thesis was too “out there,” and a baseless conspiracy theory. I did not want to believe that there was any truth to this. It changes my entire view of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the relationship between Iran and the West, and the history of our times.

The implications of the thesis are too frightening to think about. The level of the treason and betrayal that is taking place against the people of every nation is beyond most people’s imagination.

image961_ayatolla_conneryBut I always try to keep an open mind because anything is plausible in this crazy world. So, last month I finally decided to actually look at the evidence that is available on the Internet about this thesis and dig deeper into history.

The first clue that caught my eye was the Shah’s own words. “If you lift up Khomeini’s beard,” he said, “you will find Made In England written under his chin.”

More clues come from more of the Shah’s words in the article, from an interview with David Frost when the Shah was in exile in Panama:

Do you think that Mr. Khomeini, an uneducated person . . . could have planned all this, masterminded all this, set up all the organizations. I know that one man alone could not have done it. This I know.

I know that tremendous amount of money was spend [sic]. This also I know.

I know that top experts in propaganda were used to show us like tyrants and monsters, and the other side as democratic, liberal revolutionaries who wanted to save the country.

I know how mean the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, had been towards us. This I know. Because we have all the files. If you monitor the broadcast towards our country you would see that it was full of venom. So it seemed that it was really a very well orchestrated conspiracy.

Going right to the heart of what actually transpired, the article gives us this quote from historian F. William Engdahl:

81JMUc5jjiL

In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s [Zbigniew] Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead “case officers” in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis’s scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an “Arc of Crisis,” which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public “credit” for getting rid of the “corrupt” Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

usrael

Speaking of “safely in the background,” one can’t help but notice what a boon to Israel all this balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East would certainly be. This policy of fracturing and destabilizing Israel’s biggest potential enemies bears a striking resemblance to “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” prepared by a neocon study group led by Richard Perle for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. It is also in complete harmony with Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.”

That securing Israel’s realm should be the foremost concern of noted Orientalist Bernard Lewis should be no surprise. In the following quote, M. Shahid Alam, contrasts a newer school of Oriental studies with that led by Lewis:

M-Shahid-AlamThey make an effort to locate Islamic societies in their historical context, arguing that Islamic responses to Western challenges have been diverse and evolving over time, and they do not derive from an innate hostility to the West or some unchanging Islamic mindset. The second camp, now led mostly by Jews, has reverted to Orientalism’s original mission of subordinating knowledge to Western power, now filtered through the prism of Zionist interests. This Zionist Orientalism has assiduously sought to paint Islam and Islamic societies as innately hostile to the West, modernism, democracy, tolerance, scientific advance, and women’s rights.

This Zionist camp has been led for more than fifty years by Bernard Lewis, who has enjoyed an intimate relationship with power that would be the envy of the most distinguished Orientalists of an earlier generation. He has been strongly supported by a contingent of able lieutenants, whose ranks have included the likes of Elie Kedourie, David Pryce-Jones, Raphael Patai, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer. There are many foot soldiers, too, who have provided distinguished service to this new Orientalism. And no compendium of these foot soldiers would be complete without the names of Thomas Friedman, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Judith Miller.

Alam, whose essay is entitled “Scholarship or Sophistry: Bernard Lewis and the New Orientalism,” notes the irony of the fact that before the rise of Zionism, it was Jewish scholars who were more likely to give a more balanced view of Muslim and Middle Eastern societies.

eretz_israel_by_3d4d-d67paci

Yet the vigor of this early anti-Orientalism of Jewish scholars would not last; it would not survive the logic of the Zionist movement as it sought to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Such a state could only emerge as a child of Western imperialist powers, and it could only come into existence by displacing the greater part of the Palestinian population, by incorporating them into an apartheid state, or through some combination of the two. In addition, once created, Israel could only survive as a military, expansionist, and hegemonic state, constantly at war with its neighbors.

“They Hate Us for Our Freedom”

Claire Fontaine artwork

Claire Fontaine artwork

If the view of Muslim societies as hopelessly backward and riven with sectarian violence did not fit the facts, it was not the view but the facts that had to be changed. Iran under the Shah was not good for that worldview, which meant that he was not good for “the realm.” Returning to the Excavator article, here is a summary of why he had to go:

  1. Nuclear Power. The Shah was modernizing Iran in a significant way, and this had to be stopped. The Bilderberg and Club of Rome elite are notoriously anti-growth, and anti-economic development because keeping nations poor is the best way to control them. The British policy towards her colonies in Africa was based on under-development, keeping the people poor, and putting a tiny elite in power. This policy was also used against Iran.
  1. Oil Production. The Shah’s decision to increase Iranian oil production angered U.S. oil companies and others who wanted to maintain artificial scarcity in the international oil market in order to keep prices high and make more profits. Specifically, the Shah said that a couple of years before the Revolution he “heard from two different sources connected with the oil companies that the regime within Iran will change. . . If just in imagination, we believed that there was a plan that there must be less oil offered to the world market in order to make the price of oil go up, one country should have been the one chosen for this sacrifice.” (This quote is from an article called “Shah Retains Claim to Iranian Throne” that appeared in ‘The Fort Scott Tribute’ on January 18, 1980).
  1. Opium Profits. The Shah took serious measures to stop the flow of opium into Iran, which greatly damaged British interests. The Rothschilds and London’s financial empire depend on the world opium trade to retain their power and influence.
  1. Economic Threat of a Modern and Independent Iran to Interests of British-U.S. Elite. The Shah was building up Iran into a modern state by enriching the country and strengthening the middle class. He was not a perfect ruler, but he was not the tyrant that the West made him out to be. The Shah’s original sin was siding with the U.S. and British against Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. He should have known that if you make a deal with the devil and then spit in his face you will be treated accordingly. But, this is not about one man or one nation. Nations around the world are treated like colonies by international banks and multinational corporations, including America. America and Iran have lived under puppet leaders for most of the 20th century. When a true leader acts in the interest of his country and his people the elite secret societies get rid of him. They either kill the patriotic leader, like John F. Kennedy in 1963, or they instigate a revolution against him, like the Shah in 1979.
  1. Create A Clash of Civilizations. The destruction of the modern world economy, the nation state, and the current world order are three stated objectives of the Anglo-American power elite. They have created an artificial conflict between Islam and the West to achieve all three objectives.

2 world events

09263760180010700This global conflict came into being as a result of two world events. The first event was the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution which was the product of the MI6, CIA, Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome and other secret global organizations. The second event was the September 11 terrorist attacks that was orchestrated by the Mossad and the Anglo-American shadow government.

Iran was set up in 1979 as the representative of Islamic Civilization, and ever since then its extremist clerical oligarchy has used the language of Islam to pose as the leader of a resistance bloc to Western powers. Influential Iranian clerics are most likely in the fold of the same Western powers that turned Khomeini into “Time’s Person of the Year,” in 1979.

He might not have been as important a leader, but the killing of James Forrestal could also be offered as an important assassination in the context of U.S. policies in the Middle East. One might also question the closing assertion that the current leadership of Iran is as much in the hip pocket of the Western secret governments as the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini appears to have been. The example of the Shah, himself, shows the difficulty of keeping puppets in line after they have been put in place. If they are responsive to the needs and wishes of their own people they need to use less repression to remain in power.

Even the mainstream media admit that the Israelis were instrumental in the creation of Hamas, they say as a counterweight to the PLO, but perhaps also in furtherance of their “clash of civilizations” strategy. It is difficult to believe that Hamas remains in Israel’s fold, but one at least must wonder who has been behind those pinprick rocket attacks from Gaza, twice providing a pretext for Israel to rain wanton death and destruction upon the region.

It has also been argued that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was an inside job involving the Western banks and secret agencies, khomeinibut the man hand-picked, according to this thesis, by Western stooge Boris Yeltsin to preside over the further looting of Russia, Vladimir Putin, has apparently turned out to be too much of a Russian patriot, which explains the vitriol that is heaped upon him by the Western media and governments.

Whatever one might speculate about Iran’s current leadership, the evidence appears quite strong that Khomeini, himself, was not what he appeared to be. Drawing from various sources, with links provided, an anonymous poster on AANGIRFAN argues that Khomeini was not even Persian, that he was actually the son of a British Middle East adventurer and British Petroleum named William Richard Williamson and that his mother was a Punjabi from India. Whether it is photo-shopped or not, the depiction on the site of the Grand Ayatollah without a turban and beard and wearing a necktie is certainly enough to give one food for thought. We also find there many similar arguments to those at The Excavator for Khomeini having been a creature of the Western intelligence agencies.

Continuing the “Clash of Civilizations”

isis_beheading_2

The ever more cartoonish character of the supposed opposition faced by the Western military behemoth in the Middle East further encourages us to go back and look critically at what happened in the overthrow of the Shah. As black-hearted villains, the wanton beheaders known most commonly as ISIS are everything that the Western secret agencies, their military-industrial complex, and the Western imperial creation of Israel might wish for. As Sunni Muslims opposed by the governments of both Iraq and Iran and Israel’s next-door enemy, Hezbollah, they might muddle the clear civilization-clash lines a bit, but such fine distinctions are probably lost on most Americans. The important thing is that Muslims are the enemy.

This latest Muslim enemy, one must admit, is absolutely the strangest one yet. Armies are expensive, what with the need to feed, clothe, train, and transport them and to keep them supplied with functioning weapons and ammunition. Where is ISIS getting the wherewithal to wage modern warfare?

James Corbett has done what seems to me to be the most thoughtful inquiry into that question on the Internet with his Corbett Report entitled “Who Is Really Behind ISIS?” He might have left the “Really” out of his title, because it suggests that we are being told one thing when the reality is something else. The really odd thing about ISIS is that the propagandists don’t even seem to feel the need to put out a story about who’s backing them. Who would want to back the very incarnation of evil, anyway?

Who_Is_REALLY_Behind_ISIS__186797

In the absence even of a cover story, Corbett in his researches comes down to a list of the six likeliest candidates for ISIS creators and backers. They are Israel, NATO, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Corbett came to that conclusion in late September 2014. Now, at the end of May 2015, we have a newly declassified Pentagon document concluding that “the West, Turkey, and the Gulf States” are behind the creation of ISIS, which accords quite closely with Corbett’s findings. Certainly the case is at least as strong that the U.S., Britain, and Israel were behind the fall of the Shah of Iran.

David Martin

June 3, 2015

Addendum

I have received this very thoughtful response from one of the people on my mailing list. He clearly knows a lot more about the web site in question than I do. If, as now seems likely to me, the article referenced is disinformation, it almost reinforces the central point of my article. If the spooks find it necessary to muddy the water in this way, it suggests that there must be something to the charge that Western intelligence was behind the replacement of the Shah with Khomeini. Think of all the garbage theories they’ve put out with respect to the JFK assassination and 9/11 to put the public off the scent:

Regarding the article “Did we pull the plug on the Shah” I believe there could be a lot behind the contention that western interests covertly supported the overthrow of the Shah. The writers quoted in the article impressed. There was one exception. This was the part that purported to provide biographical information on Ayatollah Khomeini.

If he were really the son of an Englishman this information would be widely known in Iran. Middle Eastern societies place a greater importance on familial relationships. If he were the son of a non-Muslim and a westerner this fact would have to be acknowledged for it would be to his disadvantage within the Shia religious hierarchy. To try to keep such information secret would be foolish and detrimental.

The two juxtaposed photos of him where one has him in western garb appear to be based on the same original where photo-shopping has produced a new version. It looks as though the original has been rotated a few degrees and then either brightened or darkened. Then new features are built in around the core of the face. I presume the one on the left is the original but maybe not!

So the alleged side-by-side photos of Khomeini in Shia religious and western garb are very highly suspicious. The notion that he secretly was not of Iranian parentage is most dubious.

Perhaps the aim of this fairly obviously questionable story about Khomeini is to discredit the idea that his overthrow of the Shah had western backing. Who knows?

An “anonymous poster” on AANGIRFAN is not what could be called a trustworthy source. This website has a history of putting questionable material under the noses of readers. On July 30, 2005 it carried a story from Arctic Beacon where the Bin Laden brothers in 1987 told two NASA research scientists about US government plans to cause 9/11. [1]

Arctic Beacon is a website which accuses “The Jesuits” of enormous malfeasance in world affairs. Draw your own conclusions.

On July 31, 2005 AANGIRFAN had a story about a Kay Giggs, a woman who claimed to be the wife of a senior US military officer. She heard all the details from him ‘usually while he was drinking before going into one of his drunken stupors’. There were stories of strange goings on, strange rituals and secret societies. In connection with 9/11 she manages to mention a host of guilty parties including, believe it or not, one “Basil Cardinal Hume”. It was all so very confused and incoherent. [2]

On Dec 22, 2010 AANGIRFAN tackled the question as to whether Julian Assange was gay. [3]

On the other hand the story for Dec 06, 2010 provokes thought. It deals with Wikileaks and the question as to whether it may actually be a construct of the intelligence world. It is a coherent piece. [4]

On Feb 09, 2011 the website referred to an article by Michael Collins Piper posted on American Free Press which dealt with how instability and turmoil in the Arab world played into the hands of Zionism. The AANGIRFAN piece went on to attack long time critic of Zionism Ralph Schoenman and suggest he was a “disinformation agent” and a “deep cover CIA agent”. The article also referred to the 1969 moon landing as a hoax. [5]

It is furthermore important to mention that there is no person or organisation identified in its profile as being responsible for the site. So, here is a mystery.

One must note there is a disclaimer at the top of the site to the effect that views expressed on the site are not necessarily endorsed by whoever runs it.

There is some very thought provoking and valuable material posted on AANGIRFAN. However, there is also some classic disinformation placed before the public. The professionally run disinformation operation contains a mix of truth and untruth. The truth is there to provide a carrier signal for the broadcast of the untruths. Disinformation on the web works by salting valid information with untruth so that actual reality becomes discredited in the mind of the viewer or so that the viewer becomes confused or else disillusioned with the search for verifiable fact.

It is hard for a current events/history website to be always 100 percent accurate in what it presents. However, the quality of the material on AANGIRFAN is very uneven. Profundity is set side by side with nonsense. We can not be assured the website has been set up deliberately as a disinformation source. However, nonetheless, this is a valid presumption. Even if it were not deliberately set up as a disinformation ploy it inevitably functions as such because of the mix of material it contains and the effect this will have of readers/viewers.

Even if we understand a website as a disinformation source this does not necessarily mean we avoid it at all costs. Instead we may decide to use it but with due care and discretion. For example AANGIRFAN contains many wonderful and thought provoking and well-presented articles. If we were to avoid accessing the site altogether, we might miss some of these treats. If an individual has a deep knowledge of the subjects that interest him or her then they can develop skills for recognizing disinformation. With these skills misleading articles and video presentations can be mentally cast aside and relieved of their power to cause harm.

We may discover a worthwhile article at a disinformation site and trace it to where it was originally placed online. If we want to reference it in an article of our own then we can reference the site where the article was originally put online. This will avoid the negative connotations of referencing a web resource tainted by an association with disinformation.

[1]       http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/30199.htm

http://aangirfan.blogspot.ie/2005_07_01_archive.html

[2]      http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29982.htm

http://aangirfan.blogspot.ie/2005_07_01_archive.html

[3]      http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/assange-is-gay.html

[4]      http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/assanges-wikileaks-is-fake.html

[5]       http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/piper-schoenman-truth-lies-on-egypt.html

 

David Martin

June 29, 2015

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

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

Circumcision: As American as Mom, Apple Pie and Baseball?

American Circumcision

It was brought to my attention that a mother and father are in a legal battle over circumcising their 4 year old boy. The dad wants it and the mother doesn’t. The mother was arrested and jailed (since released because she finally relented and signed a release to allow the procedure).

America The Rational- DC Dave

Scary and Gross

A conversation ensued about the practice, with various people chiming in, defending the horrific procedure. One of my favorite quotes is:

My dad was never circumsized and it sure did look scary and gross down there. Thank God I was.

And this sentiment is found on the internet many places, including a recent Breitbart article, entitled, No One Wants To Live In A World Of Uncircumcised Penises:

Your penis is not a perfect, special snowflake. There are objective standards of beauty for men, just as there are for women. For the edification and enjoyment of your female partners, not to mention the quality of oral sex you’ll get throughout your life, you should get circumcised. And you should do it to your newborn sons, too, as early into their lives as possible.

It goes on to say that 15,000 years ago men wanted attractive dicks, so they started mutilating themselves for this purpose.

Ri-i-i-i-ght

That must have been the reason.

The article further uses Mayo Clinic and other health related sources, suggesting that it is more healthy. It links to these sources, adding:

…both list huge advantages, together with the obligatory, diplomatic disadvantage list

Convincing, huh? Maybe, until you actually read those sources.

From Mayo:

Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

  • Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
  • Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
  • Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
  • Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
  • Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

Did you notice it? There sure are a lot of “mights” found in those advantages. In reality, what it boils down to is cleanliness. If a man is a stank and doesn’t wash himself or care for himself properly, some of these issues are fact. But who in the right mind would rather hack off a body part than wash themselves? Who would rather cut off their nose because skin cancer “might” show up one day?

When did a baby give up its human rights to allow such a bizarre and painful act (if you think it doesn’t hurt, just watch a video or two on the subject)?

When did preemptive amputation for a possibility of penile cancer (virtually unheard of until men are in their 70’s and 80’s), or any of these reasons given, become normal in America, and why?

If the logic is to be believed, why don’t we cut off all girl’s breasts (a la Angelina Jolie) , since breast cancer rates are very high?

And why in America, when the vast majority of the world does NOT do it?

Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country.svg

The links at the bottom dispel all of these myths that are used in defense of this practice, but you could take some time to watch this video and get a very good counter argument:

One should wonder who in the hell dreamed up such a crazy practice, but it really is obvious, isn’t it?

pedophile_rabbi_metzitzah_b'peh_sucking_baby_dick_kills_babyThese beanie monsters use their “religion” as a cover for many of the most despicable practices known to mankind (including homosexuality, bestiality, coprophagia, and pedophilia). Who else could suck on a baby penis and call it religion? And because they also hide their true Holy Book, the Talmud, in the open, simply by changing word meanings (they call it Torah, when Christians consider the Old testament the Torah… which is just as vile in many ways).

Here is one of these vile creatures explaining Jewish Laws (notice that he is either masturbating or is a lunatic rocking back and forth)

It has been reported that some of these vile women EAT the foreskins, (for God’s sake, I suppose)!

7d8cdd68041fea1c7d20580018d5211c

She does this:

…so her son will never be found out if he commits theft, adultery with another man’s wife, or any other crime.

See here for other reasons these freaks eat their babies’ body parts.

America has become a Jewish controlled institution. We cower and do their bidding, even to the point of hacking off our baby’s organs. Unfortunately, it is so ingrained within us to do these things, many lash out at someone like me that points out the depravity and subservience we have to them.

It is pitiful.

 

h/t DC Dave

Also see:

Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma

Male Circumcision In The USA

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

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

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

The American (Establishment) Catholic on Forrestal’s Death

The American (Establishment) Catholic on Forrestal’s Death

by DC Dave

crucifix_flag_flat

On his Wikipedia page under “Religion” in the box on the upper right, we find “Catholic” for America’s first secretary of defense, James Forrestal. Indeed, culturally at least, Forrestal would seem to be the epitome of an Irish-American Roman Catholic. His father was an immigrant from Ireland and his mother had aspirations for young James to become a priest. But, according to biographers Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, Forrestal had broken with his Catholic faith at the time that he left Princeton University, although they interpret his thwarted request to have Monsignor Maurice Sheehey of Catholic University come visit him when he was confined to Bethesda Naval Hospital before going out a 16th floor window of the main tower there on May 22nd, 1949, as a desperate attempt to get back into the good graces of the Church.

Whether we might say that it is about a “fellow Catholic” or not, what “cradle Catholic” Donald R. McClarey has recently written in The American Catholic about Forrestal’s death is an affront to the man’s memory. It does violence to the truth. Everyone, Catholic or otherwise, should be appalled by it. Here are the offending lines:

Tragically, Forrestal, who had worked non-stop on Defense issues since he joined the Roosevelt administration in 1940, had a nervous breakdown.  While undergoing psychiatric treatment he committed suicide by jumping from the 16th floor of the National Naval Medical Center.  He left behind a note with a quotation from Sophocles’ Ajax…

James_Forrestal

James Forrestal

There’s really no excuse for anyone to be writing such things in 2015. We now have the Internet—The American Catholic is an Internet publication, after all. Since 2004 the official report on Forrestal’s death has been available online, and the evidence that it contains shows beyond serious doubt that McClarey has repeated falsehoods. Research these days begins with the Internet because it’s so easy. Simply typing in the name “James Forrestal” into any search engine leads one quickly to my web site and the discoveries that I have made.

One might think that McClarey was just negligent. He was merely repeating what was in the 1992 Hoopes and Brinkley biography, after all, and Forrestal’s death was only tangential to the subject of his article entitled “James Forrestal and His Prophecy,” which is primarily a sort of flag-waving defense of the U.S. Marine Corps. (Concerning that article, had Forrestal’s counsel been taken, the bloody battle of Iwo Jima, to which McClarey refers, would likely never have been fought because Japan would have already surrendered, but that is another topic. See “Oliver Stone on the Japanese Surrender.”) The possibility that McClarey had made an honest error, more on the order of a sin of omission caused by insufficient research diligence underlay the email that I sent him almost three weeks ago.

Now that so much time has passed and he has failed to respond, the likelihood that his was a sin of commission from the very beginning is great. The fact that his editor, Tito Edwards, at The American Catholic has also failed to respond to my May 18 email to him virtually seals it. Here is the latter email, which includes the original email to McClarey:

photo_8608

Tito Edwards

Dear Mr. Edwards,

On May 8, 2015, I sent the following email to a writer for your publication:

Dear Mr. McClarey,

A friend has called my attention to your February article in The American Catholic. You seem not to be aware of what we have learned since the release of the official report on Forrestal’s death in 2004. For starters, that poem transcription that you quote was in someone else’s handwriting. Taken all in all, the evidence points heavily toward murder and cover-up and not to suicide. See my latest article on the subject here. For a brief introduction to the subject see “New Forrestal Document Exposes Cover-up.” I believe that it is incumbent upon you to write a follow-up article correcting the record. I have come to expect government propaganda from the mainstream press. The Catholic press should not abet them.

The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to tell the truth. – Pope Leo XIII

Sincerely,

David Martin

I would have preferred to make my comment about the article online on your web site, but when I attempted to do so, I received a message that comments had been closed on the article.  May I ask you why that is so?  Looking at your site’s “comments policy,” I see nothing about any comments period or any reason for closing comments.  What possible reason could there be for closing comments on any topic, but particularly for doing it so quickly after there had been so few comments on a topic of such great importance?  I have taken note of your “three strikes and you’re out,” treatment of those you deem in violation of your rules, though I may not agree with them.  Continuing the metaphor, how do you decide that a person will not even be allowed up to the plate?

Ten days have now passed and Mr. McClarey has not responded to my email.  I sent it through a lawyer referral service so I have every reason to believe that he received it on the day I sent it.  In case he didn’t, would you please forward the message you see above to him?

Your responsibility hardly ends with fulfilling that errand request, however.  Your web site has published information about the death of a great American public servant that is contradicted by the best evidence now available.  The misinformation is so bad that the man who put it out is apparently unwilling to defend what he has written.  If he will not do it, you have an obligation either to defend it or to retract it publicly.

Sincerely,

David Martin

All those practicing evil hate the light and will not come to the light lest their deeds should be exposed.   John 3:20

The U.S. Government’s Catholic Apologists

FireShot Screen Capture #181 American Catholic

ShrineFlagReflecting upon this non-response from a publication that displays an eagle and an American flag with the cross (not a crucifix) on its masthead, I am reminded that our local diocesan newspaper the Arlington Catholic Herald did not print my letter exposing arch-neocon George Weigel for the duplicity of an article of his that they had published. I am also reminded that it is a rare American Catholic church these days that does not have an American flag in its sanctuary along with all the Christian iconography, and that the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, has taken to hanging a massive flag from its bell tower on patriotic occasions like Memorial Day and Independence Day.

The Catholic Church seems to have replaced the late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority as the most consistent supporters of jingoism and militarism within our government, and McClarey’s article is certainly consistent with that trend. With one issue, that of the undeniably worthy position against abortion, taking precedent over all others, the Church’s support for militant jingoism becomes virtually inevitable.

Holy Bible And Cross On American Flag

Holy Bible And Cross On American Flag

Parishioners are encouraged to support candidates who oppose abortion on demand, but those people are almost always Republicans who also are the biggest supporters of an aggressive foreign policy and militarism in general. Moreover, even if it is genuine, the Church’s effort to obtain a Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe v. Wade is doomed to failure as long as it gives a pass to the powerful opinion molders in favor of abortion. The annual March for Life would be much more effective if it ended up in front of the Washington Post building instead of the Supreme Court Building

Most disturbing of all from a Christian standpoint is that the Church’s embrace of the government and its flag has entailed a growing divorce from the truth.   That is because the government’s foreign policy, in particular, is built upon an ever-growing edifice of lies. Furthermore, it is a foreign policy that, at least since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, is much more in the interests of Israel than it is of the United States. It would be more honest if the flag being waved in support of the mindless patriotism that the Catholic Church has fostered were the one depicting the Star of David instead of the Stars and Stripes.

rosary-israel-flag

It is at this point that the misbegotten foreign policy and the disregard for truth come together in The American Catholic. James Forrestal, you see, was the leading opponent within the United States government of the creation of the Jewish state of Israel in Palestine.

 

David Martin

May 27, 2015

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

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

Memorial Day 2015

Memorializing Wars For Israel

I feel pretty much the same way I felt in 2008, although, admittedly, I was wrong on the exponential rise in gas prices (it did hit around the $4.00 mark):

44-leave-no-child-behindMemorial Day is a day that usually instills patriotism and pride in country and fellow Americans with flag waving, parades, salutes and a whole barrage of special services and Memorials. I have experienced all of those feelings and can remember tremendous pride and love for America and its seeming care for the rest of the world’s lesser fortunate citizens. I remember going to the parades in my youth, then marching in many later. I would beam with pride and honor.

But as I began to mature, I began to see mindlessness in the flag waving because most people weren’t even sure what the day was even for. Even I could easily forget that the day was for remembering and memorializing the fallen of wars. It was originally a day called “Decoration Day” because people would go to cemeteries and decorate the graves of fallen soldiers and service members with flags and flowers in “memorial” of those folks.

The day (like Christmas) is now commercialized to a point that it basically represents (in years past) the weekend that kicks off summer and vacation season. People pile into cars and go to some destination that usually has little or nothing to do with decorating or remembering anything except for spending money. Amusement Parks normally get a big hit on this weekend. Down south it is basically warm enough to hit the beach and remember dolphin and crabs and decorate shells. I have personally “remembered” a few golf balls on this day (once playing with a friend who had a bag towel that was the stars and stripes… we were very patriotic).

Of course, there are those who still do the “Memorial Day” military extravaganzas, just as my dad (The Old Soldier) is 31149_123261484380979_100000913848112_119357_5983076_nvery involved with every year down around Birmingham. But I know and understand where he is coming from and I know him. I know what an illegal war did to him and the tragedy that war caused for me, my sister and my Mom. I know that he flatly agrees with this neocon agenda and it is those people who are the most unpatriotic that can be… for I can never understand how sending people to die for bullshit reasons is “patriotic”.

We had our “Decoration Day” last week down close to the river (my wife’s family’s old home site/church). Every year (this is common in the SE US), we honor everyone (not just vets) who have died and get together and eat, tell stories, have a blast. Today, I am not driving anywhere. I am not raising a flag half mast. I will not salute. I will not view a parade, even if the damn thing passes in front of my home. I am going to remember those that have fallen. Period.

I am going to think about the ones falling right now in these wars that should have never been, understanding that these new deaths, brought on by careless greed for money and power, are honored only in heart and mind and not through any mindless actions that have been brainwashed into society. Doing what the monsters want us to do is not patriotic, people. Enamored by their shiny little objects that grab our attention (like an illusionist tricking his audience) doesn’t mean we care about America and its fallen. That, in my opinion, is truly from within, no matter where you are standing at the moment.

patriotism_sheepYou will see politicians out today smothering us with flag pinned dreams of hope and change, but they have little intent of real change. Its all part of the hypnotizing show. People are coming out in droves to mingle and “touch” these people, like they are spiritual miracle doers… all-the-while thousands are losing their health care, becoming sick and dying. People losing their homes in record numbers. $12-15/gallon of gas looming, but no one talking about it, yet record profits for the Bush cronies and oil friends. Apocalyptic beliefs prevailing (both us and “them”) or imagined “enemies” (radical Islamics and the like) to scare the hell out of us rednecks. Spending ungodly amounts of our illegally taken “Income Taxes” to pay the interest on the money they are borrowing from China for these oil wars, while raping and pillaging the environment and resources.

Most importantly, this fake war for Democracy is killing our friends and family when they have no real business over there. None. All lies. All devious from the get-go. I want to remember them, even though their leaders are monsters and sacrificed them for their ill gotten gains and evil intent. So, I will not memorialize the “holiday”.

But I will walk across the street to speak to my neighbor who’s husband died in Nam and tell her how much I care about her and remember her husband. I WILL reach out to several folks via phone who have lost loved ones in a war and share my thoughts with them. I will read and consider stories offered by others and “remember” their heroes with them.

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

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

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

Is She Onboard with the Cover-Up?

Is She Onboard with the Cover-Up?

Kenneth Starr has questions about departing paralegal

by DC Dave

Robert Bishop Fiske, Jr

Robert Bishop Fiske, Jr

She graduated from Johns Hopkins University and earned an MBA at the University of Denver, but her real education began with what was apparently her first job after receiving her graduate degree. Possibly through the connections of one of her parents, who both had important positions in New York City at the time, she got a job working as a paralegal for former United States Attorney for the southern district of New York, Robert Fiske. Fiske had been appointed as special prosecutor by Attorney General Janet Reno in January of 1994 to investigate the Whitewater scandal—and, particularly the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr.—of the Bill Clinton administration.

Lucia Rambusch, the person of whom we speak, would have likely been around 23 or 24 years old at the time of her appointment. We know of no evidence that she had any legal training, but it’s not really necessary for most of the sort of “gofer” work that paralegals typically do. We don’t know what she actually did for Robert Fiske or for Kenneth Starr when he was appointed by a three-judge panel to replace Fiske after the lapsed law creating the office of “Independent Counsel” was put back in force. The problem for Starr and for the head of the Little Rock office of the Independent Counsel, Hickman Ewing, is that they weren’t too sure what she did, either. Moreover, they didn’t know exactly what she had learned as of March 13, 1995, what she felt about what she had learned, and what she might do with that knowledge.

Starr and Ewing did know that she had learned a lot more than was safe for them…and for her. You see, the man for whom she had last worked directly, Miguel Rodriguez, had resigned in disgust, and before that, in December of 1994, he had written a long memorandum for the record laying out his case.

It is very clear what motivated Rodriguez to write this 30-page memorandum to “File.”  It is the same as what motivated Judge John Butzner when he argued with his two colleagues for inclusion of [dissenting witness Patrick] Knowlton’s letter with the Starr report.  He could see already that a cover-up was taking place.  He probably had already figured out that he was powerless to stop it, but he wanted the official record to show that he had tried.  (Partially covering her behind at the same time was Rodriguez’s assistant, paralegal Lucia Rambusch.  Her initials can be seen at the bottom of every page along with those of Rodriguez.)

Hickman Ewing’s Memo to Kenneth Starr

Hickman Ewing

Hickman Ewing

The Memphis attorney Ewing was Ken Starr’s “good cop,” and the head of Washington office, the politically connected Democrat and holdover from the Fiske investigation, Mark Tuohey, was his “bad cop.” Ewing, then, was the man to send to cozy up to Ms. Rambusch to feel her out and to see to it that she stayed in line. As you read Ewing’s report to Starr, which is a little more than two pages in length, you might conclude that the cozying up didn’t go well at all. Rambusch pretty much clammed up to Ewing, but the message got across to her quite clearly that she had better stay clammed up to everybody. We can see that message very clearly in the fourth of Ewing’s seven bullet points:

I told her that I wanted to find out from her what she thought had happened out at Fort Marcy Park. She said that she, Mark Tuohey and Chuck (SA Chuck Regini, FBI) had gone over every fact that she knew. She said words to the effect, “Thus, you have all the facts I had.”

I asked her for her opinion on what happened to Vince Foster. She said, “My opinion is irrelevant.” I told her, “No, it’s not. You worked on the case.” I told her that anytime I have ever taken over a case from someone, they have discussed it with me, both as to the facts developed to date, and what they think happened. I have done likewise if I was bringing someone up to speed on a matter.

I told her that if we continued on with the investigation and one and a half months from now came up with an opinion different from hers, was she then going to state that she had a different opinion. I told her that we were entitled to her input.

She said words to the effect, “I can’t go into something that I haven’t made my mind up on…maybe when I return from my trip, I might talk about it.” (emphasis added)

Mark Tuohey

Mark Tuohey

So Ewing, the salesman, was unable to close the sale. You know that after Rambusch has spent her two months about as far away from this nightmare as she can possibly get—in Tasmania, of all places—she is not going to have anything more to say to Ewing. She knows, quite correctly as we see, that anything she tells Ewing is going straight back to Starr. Furthermore, it’s likely to be going back to Starr’s enforcer, Tuohey, when, according to Ewing’s handwritten notes. “MT had asked LR to lie about MR” and “LR is terrorized by MT.”

But Ewing does not discourage easily. He tries another angle at bullet point 6, but once again he’s cold shouldered, like a smoothie being rejected on a persistent request for a date:

Since she said she did not want to give opinions or theories, I asked her if she would talk about facts. She said she would. I then asked:

Do you know of any facts that would show that [Cheryl] Braun, [John] Rolla, or [Peter] Simonello [of the Park Police] staged the corpse and planted the gun on Vince Foster? [I was looking a (sic) Miguel’s memo, p. 22, fn. 17, as my basis, but made no mention of Miguel or the memo in asking this.] She said, “I really don’t want to discuss this.”

Cheryl Braun and John Rolla testifying before Senate Committee

Cheryl Braun and John Rolla testifying before Senate Committee

Rambusch’s government education was at an end. One can only wonder what larger lesson she gained from the experience. Do you think she learned enough to agree with my observation in “Vince Foster’s Valuable Murder”: “For those willing to open their eyes only a little bit, no episode reveals so simply and clearly the complete corruption of America’s major institutions as we head into the 21st century”?

Don’t Talk to Lucia

Kenneth Starr

Kenneth Starr

When Ewing said to Rambusch “…if we continued on with the investigation and one and a half months from now came up with an opinion different from hers…” she knew full well what he was saying. He was telling her in so many words that they were going to proclaim Foster’s death a suicide even though Rambusch had seen thoroughly convincing evidence that it was a rather poorly covered-up murder.

And that’s what happened, although Starr’s team strung things out for more than two and a half additional years, no doubt in hopes that interest in the matter would die down. During that period their most noteworthy act occurred in October of 1995 when they were unsuccessful in their attempt to harass witness Patrick Knowlton into silence. In his book The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has titled his chapter 12 about the episode, “Street Fascism.”

Miguel Rodriguez

Miguel Rodriguez

As we intimated earlier, Ewing’s call to Rambusch was not the complete failure that it might at first appear. Like Miguel Rodriguez, she got the message that it would not be a good idea for her to tell anyone what she had discovered on her first job. For his part, Rodriguez sent a memo to everyone at the office of the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, California, to which he had returned after leaving Starr’s employ in frustration, that anyone from the press inquiring about his work for Starr should be referred to Ewing’s office in Little Rock for a response. To show everyone how committed he was to omertà, U.S. shadow-government style, he open-copied the memo to his boss at the Sacramento office and to Ewing and Starr. You can see the memo here. And a couple of weeks before he wrote that memo, he had dutifully reported to Ewing about telephone calls he had received from the media and how he had brushed the callers off.

One might think that Rambusch would be proud to tell everyone that she had worked for a famous special prosecutor and a famous independent counsel right out of college, but such is not the case. Her Linked-In résumé has a curious gap after she left the University of Denver. You’d never know that she ever worked for the federal government. It could hardly be clearer that she doesn’t want anyone asking her about her work there.

It’s enough to make this writer feel a little bad about the article he has just written on account of the attention he has directed her way. Let everyone be clear, to paraphrase a man whose presence looms over this sorry affair, I have not had any sort of exchange, either written or oral, with that woman, Miss Rambusch. I made no attempt to contact her and plan no such attempt. Everything I have learned about her work for Fiske and Starr is available at the National Archives and what I have related about her professional life can be found with a diligent search of the Internet. If I have not documented statements about her career as I would usually do it is because I don’t want to make it easy for anyone to invade the privacy that she clearly wants to guard. She has married, has three children, and I am sure she wishes that she had never taken that job in Washington, DC.

 

David Martin

May 19, 2015

 

For more articles on Vince Foster’s murder and the cover-up go here.

 

Thanks to Hugh for the pictures.

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

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