Seeds of Permanent Conflict in Palestine

Seeds of Permanent Conflict in Palestine

A review

Wars themselves are bad enough, with all the death and misery that they visit upon those who fight them and get caught up in them. The consequences of the wars, though, can be as bad or worse. Had Russia not participated in World War I, it’s a virtual certainty that the Communists would not have taken over that country. That war and the peace arrangement that followed it were primarily responsible for the even larger World War II. Had there been no World War II, the Communists would have had a very small chance of coming to power in the most populous country on earth, China.

A less well-known consequence of World War I is that it planted the seed for the endless conflict in Palestine and surrounding areas in the Middle East. When the war began in 1914, the entire region was still a part of the Ottoman Empire, as it had been for centuries. That Turkish empire had also been in a state of decline for quite a long time. Its alliance with the losing Central Powers in WW I resulted in its final dissolution.

We know from the movie Lawrence of Arabia that the British worked 51ORhWWKjbLclosely with the Arabs during WW I as a means of undermining Germany’s Ottoman ally. The British promised independence to the Arabs as their reward for assisting them. But the British made a lot of promises as part of their war measures, and they were in direct conflict with one another. In the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, between British Foreign Officer Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Marie Denis Georges-Picot, concluded in early 1916, the two allies divided up control of much of the Middle Eastern Ottoman territory among themselves upon successful conclusion of the war. A third fateful promise was made to the leaders of Zionism in the form of a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to leading British Zionist Baron Walter Rothschild promising a “national home” for Jews in the Ottoman territory of Palestine, the famous Balfour Declaration.

Thus, laying out Britain’s contradictory promises, Doreen Ingrams sets the stage in the introduction to her very revealing 1972 book, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict. She has gathered various letters and minutes of meetings dealing with the Palestine question from the British Archives and, for the most part, lets them speak for themselves. How they speak is well summed up by the subtitle of her book. It’s a sad story.

A War Measure

That Lord Balfour and the British War Cabinet viewed the eventual declaration as a vital war measure is captured in these minutes from the cabinet’s October 4, 1917, meeting:

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Balfour) stated that the German Government were [sic] making great efforts to capture the sympathy of the Zionist Movement. This movement, though opposed by a number of wealthy Jews in this country, had behind it the support of a majority of Jews, at all events in Russia and America, and possibly in other countries…Mr. Balfour then read a very sympathetic declaration by the French Government which had been conveyed to the Zionists, and he stated that he knew that President Wilson was extremely favorable to the movement…

Balfour was certainly wrong that the majority of Jews in the United States at that time supported Zionism. Only a very small minority did, but they were an extraordinarily powerful and zealous, even fanatic, minority as we learn from Alison Weir’s very important book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel. The Unites States also had its share of counterparts to the rich British Jews who opposed Zionism, as we learn from the first volume of Alan Hart’s Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews.

Numbers aside, it was the political strength of the Zionist movement that was of primary importance, as this quote from Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s 1939 Memoirs makes clear:

The Balfour Declaration represented the convinced policy of all parties in our country and also in America, but the launching of it in 1917 was due, as I have said, to propagandist reasons… The Zionist Movement was exceptionally strong in Russia and America… It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.

Edwin S. Montagu

“Edwin Samuel Montagu” by Central News Agency – National Library of Israel, Schwadron collection.

The Prime Minister’s statement about the support of “all parties in our country” goes too far, though. The minutes of that very same October 4 meeting, cited above, reveal the truth of Lord Balfour’s observations about the opposition to Zionism of certain wealthy Jews in Britain. One of them, Edwin Montagu, was, as Secretary of State for India, a member of the War Cabinet:

Mr. Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that Palestine was the “national home” of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious community and himself as a Jewish Englishman. He based his argument on the prejudicial effect on the status of Jewish Britons of a statement that His Majesty’s Government regarded Palestine as the national home of Jewish people. Whatever safeguarding words might be used in the formula, the civil rights of Jews as nationals in the country in which they were born might be endangered. How would he negotiate with the peoples of India on behalf of His Majesty’s Government if the world had just been told that His Majesty’s Government regarded his national home as being in Turkish territory? … He also pointed out that most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism, while it was supported by foreign-born Jews, such as Dr. [Moses] Gaster [Chief Rabbi of the Sephardic Communities of England] and Dr. J. H. Herz [Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of the British Empire], the two Grand Rabbis, who had been born in Roumania and Austria respectively, and Dr [Chaim] Weizmann, President of the English Zionist Federation, who was born in Russia. He submitted that the Cabinet’s first duty was to English Jews, and that Colonel [Edward] House had declared that President Wilson is opposed to a declaration now.

Philip_Magnus

“Philip Magnus” by unknown – National Library of Israel, Schwadron collection.

Other prominent British Jews weighed in with letters echoing Montagu, and in all likelihood they reflect the opinions of most American Jews at the time, Lord Balfour notwithstanding. This is from the letter of Member of Parliament, Sir Philip Magnus:

In replying to your letter of the 6th October I do not gather that I am expected to distinguish my views as a Jew from those I hold as a British subject. Indeed, it is not necessary, even if it were possible. For I agree with the late Chief Rabbi, Dr. Herman Adler, that “ever since the conquest of Palestine by the Romans we have ceased to be a body politic,” that “the great bond that unites Israel is not one of race but the bond of a common religion,” and that we have no national aspirations apart from those of the country of our birth…I cannot agree that the Jews regard themselves as a nation, and the term “national” as applied to a community of Jews in Palestine or elsewhere seems to me to beg the question between Zionists and their opponents, and should, I suggest, be withdrawn from the proposed formula. Indeed, the inclusion in the terms of the declaration of the words “a national home for the Jewish race” seems to me both undesirable and inferentially inaccurate…It is essential…that any privileges granted to the Jews should be shared by their fellow-citizens of other creeds…

L. L. Cohen, Chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians made this comment:

The establishment of a “national home for the Jewish race” in Palestine, presupposes that the Jews are a nation, which I deny, and that they are homeless, which implies that, in the countries where they enjoy religious liberty and the full rights of citizenship, they are separate entities, unidentified with the interests of the nations of which they form parts, an implication which I repudiate.

MontefioreCG

A 1925 painting by Christopher Williams.

Claude G. Montefiore, President of the Anglo-Jewish Association, was only lukewarm in his support:

For the true well-being of the Jewish race emancipation and liberty in the countries of the world are a thousand times more important than a “home.” In any case only a small fraction of the Jews could be collected together in Palestine…

I and my friends do not desire to impede colonization and immigration into Palestine, on the contrary we desire to obtain free facilities for them. We are in favour of local autonomy where ever the conditions allow it. Whoever the suzerain Power of Palestine may be, we are in favour of the Jews, when their numbers permit it, ultimately obtaining the power which any large majority may justly claim. (The population breakdown of Palestine at the time was approximately 512,000 Muslims, 66,000 Jews, and 61,000 Christian, as reported on page 44. Ed.)

Ingrams also reprints strong letters of support for the declaration from British Jewish leaders, though, with the exception of Lord Rothschild, they were, as Montagu noted, all foreign born. With even Jewish opinion in Britain divided over the question of the creation of a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine, the obviously deciding reason for the pronouncement in its favor is summed up in the following quote from Ingrams:

Meanwhile numbers of letters from Jews in Britain and abroad pressing for the declaration were received at the Foreign Office. [Assistant Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] Ronald Graham addressed a Memorandum to Mr. Balfour regretting the Cabinet’s delay in giving an assurance to the Zionists as this delay would throw them into the arms of the Germans. The moment, he said, this assurance is granted the Zionist Jews are prepared to start an active pro-Ally propaganda throughout the world. (Emphasis added)

And so, in the midst of their death struggle with the Germans, and with that threat and that promise firmly in mind:

The War Cabinet authorized:

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Foreign Affairs to take a suitable opportunity for making the following declaration of sympathy with the Zionist aspirations:

His Majesty’s Government view [sic] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The letter embodying this declaration was sent by Balfour to Lord Rothschild on 2 November 1917.

An Impossible Assignment

To further the war effort, the British government didn’t waste any time putting out the message that the declaration promised a great deal more to the Jews than what its carefully chosen words actually said:

The Foreign Office set up a special branch for Jewish propaganda within the Department of Information under the control “of a very active Zionist propagandist named A. Hyamson, whose business it is to produce suitable literature and ultimately as soon as can be arranged, look after its distribution.” Propaganda material was distributed to virtually every known Jewish community in the world through local Zionist societies and other intermediaries. Leaflets containing the text of the Balfour Declaration were dropped over German and Austrian territory: pamphlets in Yiddish were circulated to Jewish troops in Central European armies—after the capture of Jerusalem—which read: “Jerusalem has fallen! The hour of Jewish redemption has arrived…Palestine must be the national home of the Jewish people once more…The Allies are giving the Land of Israel to the people of Israel. Every loyal Jewish heart is now filled with joy for this great victory. Will you join them and help to build a Jewish homeland in Palestine? … Stop fighting the Allies, who are fighting for you, for all the Jews, for the freedom of all the small nations. Remember! An Allied victory means the Jewish people’s return to Zion…”

It didn’t help at all after the war and after the British were given the Mandate over Palestine that the Zionist organizations continued to repeat this message in order to encourage immigration, that is, that Palestine had been given to the Jews. For larger public consumption, the British government and the Zionist leaders maintained that the declaration meant no more than what it said. Edwin Montagu had probably been instrumental in getting the passage, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” into the declaration, but the subsequent British propaganda and the messages of Zionist leaders to the world Jewish community promised, in so many words, to run rough shod over those civil and religious rights.

Hearing the British propaganda and the Zionist messages to their followers, the residents of Palestine were not easily reassured that the purveyors of the scary message didn’t really mean it. They feared the worst, and as it turned out, the worst is what they got and are continuing to get. It fell upon the British military administration of Palestine, known as Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or O.E.T.A. to try to keep the peace.

Shortly afterward the British government set up a Zionist Commission headed by Chaim Weizmann, himself, “to carry out, subject to General Allenby’s authority, any steps required to give effect to Government declaration in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.”

The following internal memorandum from Sir Ronald Storrs, who was, as he put it, “the first military governor of Jerusalem since Pontius Pilate,” captures very well the difficulty of the task before him:

Ronald_Storrs

Sir Ronald Storrs Governor of Jerusalem and Judea

From the first announcement of the formation of the Zionist Commission, the Arab and Christian elements of Palestine have been labouring under grave disquietude which has not been allayed by the arrival of the gentlemen themselves. A variety of enthusiastic articles upon the future of Zionism published in many organs of the British Press have for obvious reason wrought uneasiness and depression in the other elements of Palestine generally, and in particular, the Moslems. These feelings have been accentuated by numerous meetings of Jews… On the 17th Dr. Mekler speaking upon the geographical, agricultural, and health situation of Palestine closed his speech by attempting to show “how the Jewish people in their present state could take over the Holy Land” … At the beginning of March in the Hebrew Seminary Dr. Morchak delivered a speech on the return of Israel to Zion in which he elaborated a system of the future ruling of Palestine by the Jews. Such proceedings…caused no little despondency and searchings of heart and produced, as might have been expected, the usual ineffectual rejoinders in the shape of Moslem and Christian Land Unions for the protection of the soil, with a heroic programme and no subscriptions or results…

I cannot agree that, as Dr. Weizmann would seem to suggest, it is the business of the Military Authorities “to bring home to the Arabs and Syrians the fact that H.M.G. has expressed a definite policy with regard to the future of the Jews in Palestine.” This has already been done by Mr. Balfour in London, and by the Press throughout the world. What is wanted is that the Zionists themselves should bring home to the Arabs and Syrians an exposition at once as accurate and conciliatory as possible of their real aims and policy in the country…

Speaking myself as a convinced Zionist, I cannot help thinking that the Commission are [sic] lacking in a sense of the dramatic actuality. Palestine, up to now a Moslem country, has fallen into the hands of a Christian Power which on the eve of its conquest announced that a considerable portion of its land is to be handed over for colonization purposes to a nowhere very popular people. The despatch of a Commission of these people is subsequently announced…

What Storrs was requesting of Weizmann was, in reality, every bit as contradictory as the wartime promises that the British government had made. A statement of the Zionist’s real aims, as we now see from hindsight, could not be at the same time accurate and conciliatory.

Curzon, the Realist

George Nathaniel Curzon

George Nathaniel Curzon

One who saw clearly the contradiction at the time was Lord Curzon, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Like Montagu, he had been a dissenting member of the War Cabinet that approved the Balfour Declaration, but his opposition had been more on practical than ideological grounds. From his long experience in the region, he just didn’t see how this Jewish home in Palestine could work without completely upsetting the social and political applecart.

In January 1920 he warned Balfour that a Jewish government of any kind in Palestine would result in an Arab uprising. Balfour responded:

…As far as I know Weizmann has never put forward a claim for the Jewish Government of Palestine. Such a claim is in my opinion certainly inadmissible and personally I do not think we should go further than the original which I made to Lord Rothschild.

Curzon wrote back six days later:

…As for Weizmann and Palestine, I entertain no doubt that he is out for a Jewish Government, if not at the moment, then in the near future…

On December 17th, he [Weizmann] telegraphed to Eder of the Zionist Commission at Jaffa: “The new proposal stipulates first that the whole administration of P. shall be so formed as to make of P. a Jewish Commonwealth, under British trusteeship, and that the Jews shall so participate in the administration as to secure this object.”

Further “The Jewish population is to be allowed the widest practicable measure of self-government and to have extensive powers of expropriating the owners of the soil, etc.”

What all this can mean except Government I do not see. Indeed a Commonwealth as defined in my dictionary is a “body politic” a “state” an “independent community” a “republic.”

I feel tolerably sure therefore that while Weizmann may say one thing to you, or while you may mean one thing by a National Home, he is out for something quite different. He contemplates a Jewish State, a Jewish nation, a subordinate population of Arabs etc. ruled by Jews; the Jews in possession of the fat of the land, and directing the Administration.

He is trying to effect this behind the screen and under the shelter of British trusteeship.

I do not envy those who wield the latter, when they realise the pressure to which they are certain to be exposed…

One of those who had been put in the unenviable position was Major-General H.D. Watson, Chief Administrator of Palestine, who reported to the Foreign Office in August 1919:

On taking over the Administration of O.E.T.A. South I had an open mind with regard to the Zionist movement and was fully in sympathy with the aim of the Jews for a National Home in Palestine—and with that aim I am still in sympathy, as long as it is not carried out at the expense of the rightful inhabitants and owners of the land. There is no doubt whatsoever that the feeling of the great mass of the population is very antagonistic to the scheme… The people of the country, the owners of the land have looked with eager eyes to the peaceful development of their country and the better education of their children—for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of peoples of alien nationality. Certain of the long established Jews also are not in sympathy with the Zionist movement.

The antagonism to Zionism of the majority of the population is deep rooted—it is fast leading to hatred of the British—and will result, if the Zionist programme is forced upon them, in an outbreak of a very serious character necessitating the employment of a much larger number of troops than at present located in the territory…

The great fear of the people is that once Zionist wealth is passed into the land, all territorial and mineral concessions will fall into the hands of the Jews whose intensely clannish instincts prohibit them from dealing with any but those of their own religion, to the detriment of Moslems and Christians. These latter, the natives of the soil, foresee their eventual banishment from the land…

Churchill, The Fantasist

In 1921 responsibility for the administration of Palestine, as well as other mandated territories, was passed from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office. As Christopher Sykes put it in Crossroads to Israel, “In terms of personalities this change meant that the territories left the care of Lord Curzon, an emphatic opponent of Zionism but one who had never allowed his prejudice to influence his official actions, and entered the care of the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill who wished Zionism well from his heart.”

As we shall see, the change also meant the replacement of Curzon’s gumption and practicality with Churchill’s dreamy idealism and high-sounding rhetoric.

Upon the occasion of his first visit to Palestine after assuming his new responsibility, he was greeted by a delegation of Muslims and Christians in Haifa that made this observation to him:

…Had Zionists come to Palestine simply as visitors, or had matters remained as before the war, there would be no question of Jew or non-Jew. It is the idea of transforming Palestine into a home for the Jews that Arabs resent and fight against. The fact that a Jew is a Jew has never prejudiced the Arabs against him. Before the war Jews enjoyed all the privileges and rights of citizenship. The question is not a religious one. For we see that Christians and Moslems alike, whose religions are not similar, unite in their hatred of Zionism…

Churchill gave them this response:

churchillIt is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a national home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews and good for the British Empire. But we also think it will be good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine, and we intend that it shall be good for them, and that they shall not be sufferers or supplanted in the country in which they dwell or denied their share in all that makes for progress and prosperity. And here I would draw your attention to the second part of the Balfour Declaration which solemnly and explicitly promises to the inhabitants of Palestine the fullest protection of their civil and political rights. I was sorry to hear in the paper you have just read that you do not regard that promise as of value. It seems to be a vital matter for you and one to which you should hold most firmly and for the exact fulfillment of which you should claim. If the one promise stands, so does the other; and we shall be judges as we faithfully fulfill them both…

Readers might be reminded that when British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin did his best to fulfill the promise of the second part of the Balfour Declaration in the 1940s the Zionists tried their best to assassinate him. The British promise of respect for the rights of the non-Jewish natives of Palestine was wholly inconsistent with the Zionist agenda.

After Churchill’s visit, Captain C.D. Brunton of General Staff Intelligence made this observation in an internal memorandum:

Ever since our occupation of the country the inhabitants have disliked the policy of founding a national home for the Jews in Palestine. This feeling has gradually developed into nothing short of bitter and widespread hostility, and the Arab population has come to regard the Zionists with hatred and the British with resentment. Mr. Churchill’s visit put the final touch to the picture. He upheld the Zionist cause and treated the Arab demands like those of a negligible opposition to be put off by a few political phrases and treated like bad children…

Some three months later, on June 14, 1921, Churchill made this statement to Parliament:

…The Arabs believe that in the next few years they are going to be swamped by scores of thousands of immigrants from Central Europe, who will push them off the land, eat up the scanty substance of the country, and eventually gain absolute control of its institutions and destinies. As a matter of fact these fears are illusory. The Zionists in order to obtain the enthusiasm and the support which they require are bound to state their case with the fullest ardour, conviction and hope, and it is these declarations which alarm the Arabs, and not the actual dimensions of the immigration which has taken place or can take place in practice…

There is really nothing for the Arabs to be frightened about. All the Jewish immigration is being very carefully watched and controlled both from the point of view of numbers and character. No Jew will be brought in beyond the number who can be provided for by the expanding wealth and development of the resources of the country…We cannot possibly agree to allow the Jewish colonies to be wrecked or all future immigration to be stopped without definitely accepting the position that the word of Britain no longer counts throughout the East and the Middle East. If representative institutions are conceded, as we hope they will be, to the Arabs in Palestine, some definite arrangements will have to be made in the instrument on which those institutions stand, which will safeguard within reasonable limits the immigration of Jews into the country, as they make their own way and create their own means of subsistence. Our task, using a phrase of the late Lord Salisbury, will be to persuade one side to concede and the other to forbear, but keeping a reasonable margin of force available in order to ensure the acceptance of the position of both parties.

The task, as it turns out, was impossible. The Arab fears were based upon down-to-earth reality; Churchill’s attempt at calming reassurance was so much pie in the sky. He reminds us of no one so much as Vice President Dick Cheney telling Tim Russert on Meet the Press that Americans would be greeted in Iraq as liberators.

How did we get into this mess? Pick your mess in the Middle East. Doreen Ingrams’ valuable book is a very good starting place to begin to answer the question.

 

David Martin

January 15, 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

Persistent Lies about James Forrestal

Persistent Lies about James Forrestal

From the Arlington Cemetery Web Site

by DC Dave

This is an email that I sent on December 18, 2014. It did not bounce back as undeliverable, so I assume it reached its intended recipient. As of this date I have received no response and the changes that I suggested have not been made. Consequently, I have decided to make the email public:

Dear Arlington National Cemetery Webmaster,

On the site for our first secretary of defense, James Forrestal, you state, “On May 22 [1949], after several prior attempts at suicide, and after copying a passage from Sophocles’ “Chorus from Ajax”, he jumped from the 16th floor hall window.”

Only the date in that statement is verifiably correct.  The allegation of several prior suicide attempts originates with the scandal columnist and Forrestal enemy Drew Pearson.  Pearson had no source for his allegations and not one person has come forward to support it.  Rather, everyone who has looked into the multiple suicide attempts charge has found it to be bogus.  Biographers Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley say that Elliot Janeway was told by Ferdinand Eberstadt that Forrestal made an attempt to kill himself at Hobe Sound, FL, (with no details given), but they did not interview Eberstadt, who was alive when they wrote their book, and Janeway is at least as unreliable as Pearson.

Concerning the passage from the poem by Sophocles, check out the copy that I obtained with the Freedom of Information Act in 2004 and the samples of Forrestal’s handwriting here.  Now do you still want to say that he was the one who copied that excerpt?

He did not go out the hall window, either; he went out the window of a kitchen across the hall from his room.  And if you still want to maintain that he jumped, I suggest that you examine the handwriting on that surrogate suicide note again and reflect upon the meaning of what you see.

Sincerely,

David Martin

The Arlington National Cemetery web site in question is not an official government site. On the site’s home page one is greeted with this message: “Welcome To The Unofficial Site Devoted To America’s Most Hallowed Ground And To The Heroes And The Pathfinders Who Rest In Eternal Peace And Honored Glory There.”

Above that is the message:

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY (WEBSITE)

Where Valor Proudly Sleeps

The man whose name is behind the site is one Michael Robert Patterson, and at the bottom of the page he tells us one more time that he and his site are in no way associated with either the United States government or its army. By the manner in which he has treated the subject of James Forrestal’s death, he and his site would seem to be not very closely associated with the truth, either.

I first took note of the Arlington Cemetery site’s Forrestal observations in Part 2 of “Who Killed James Forrestal?” published more than ten years ago on September 22, 2004. In Part 2, reading from the official inquiry on Forrestal’s death, the Willcutts Report, we also have this exchange with the lead psychiatrist in the case, Dr. George Raines:

Q: Did Mister Forrestal make any attempts at suicide while he was under your care?

A: None whatsoever.  The matter of suicide in Hobe Sound, he told Doctor [William] Menninger that he had attempted to hang himself with a belt.  Menninger and I were very skeptical of that and both he and I were of the opinion that it was sort of a nightmare.  The man had no marks on him and there was no broken belt.  Very frequently a depressed person has a fantasy of dying and reports it as real.  So far as I know he never made a single real attempt at suicide except that one that was successful.

Captain Raines is the one doctor among the several that Forrestal had who testified that his patient had expressed James_Forrestalsuicidal urges to him. He also absurdly volunteered that the handwriting of the transcribed poem looked like Forrestal’s. For a man with an intimate knowledge of the case, who was clearly doing his best to sell the suicide story, to deny knowledge of Forrestal making any previous attempts at suicide virtually confirms that there were no such attempts. Even without this testimony, which did not come to light until 2004, repeating Drew Pearson’s completely uncorroborated and patently ridiculous claims was irresponsible to begin with.

I made reference to the erroneous claims of the Arlington Cemetery site again on September 27, 2004, in a short summary article entitled “New Forrestal Document Exposes Cover-up.” This repeated mention has obviously had no effect on Mr. Patterson. After the passage of a decade, I decided to make a more active effort to get him to bring his statement concerning Forrestal’s demise into closer conformity with the known facts.

From studying his home page, we should hardly be surprised at his failure to respond. Taking him at his word that he is not associated with the U.S. government, it is still hard to imagine how his site would be different if it were wholly owned and financed by the most war-profiting elements of the military-industrial complex. Consider his collection of quotes on his home page, particularly the one laid out as though it were some lyrical poem at the top of the second column:

Great harm has been done to us.

We have suffered great loss.

And in our grief and anger we have found

our mission and our moment.

–President George W. Bush, September 2001

This celebration of the whipping up of war fever is very reminiscent of what Hermann Göring told American psychologist Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg:

Why, of course, the people don’t want war… But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

HallowedGrounds

“Hallowed Grounds”

All that is needed to give the Göring observation a particularly American flavor is to suggest that the war glorification be wrapped in the cloak of religion. To call this military cemetery sacrilegiously “our most hallowed ground” is a step in that direction. But that’s not enough for Patterson. With another of his quotes, he turns to the master of the genre:

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.

–Abraham Lincoln, November 1864

From a site that is devoted not to truth but to the glorification of war, then, I don’t suppose I should be holding out much hope that they would do justice to a man who labored mightily to bring an end to the Pacific War well before the assaults on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to forestall our endless involvement in war in the Middle East. Unfortunately, I’m also getting the same non-response from the less jingoistic Find A Grave. I sent the following message to Curator, Senior Administrator Russ Dodge on the same day:

Hi Russ,

Your misstatement  concerning the nature of James Forrestal’s death is not as egregious as the one at the Arlington National Cemetery site, but if you will read what I sent them (attached) you will still see that what you have written is now indefensible.  The evidence is now really overwhelming that he was thrown from the window of the main tower of the Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Dave

Find A Grave has a number of other people working on their site, with their email addresses.   Perhaps readers could join me in importuning them.

??????????

David Martin

January 8, 2015

Addendum

Readers clicking on the word “misstatement” in my letter to Russ Dodge of Find A Grave, above, will see that there is no longer any obvious misstatement there.  Previously it said that Forrestal committed suicide by jumping from a 16th floor window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital.  Now it says only that he fell from the window, which is in harmony with the government’s last word on the subject in the Willcutts Report, the official investigation of Forrestal’s death.  It is also in harmony with his official biography from the Department of Defense, whose last paragraph has this very telling statement:

In fact, centralization of authority in the Office of the Secretary of Defense became a constant objective under Forrestal and many of his successors. Unfortunately, Forrestal was no longer in the Pentagon when Congress approved these amendments. He left office on 28 March 1949 and died tragically less than two months later.

One can be sure that those words, which don’t explain the nature of the tragedy, whether he was murdered, committed suicide, or died by accident, were chosen very carefully.

As for the new statement at Find A Grave, we fancy that the change was made because we decided to follow our own advice and write a more detailed follow-up email explaining why it was inappropriate to say flatly that Forrestal committed suicide, but this time with a copy to all of the other editors listed on the web site.  Readers who are still inclined to communicate with them might thank them, as I did, for making the necessary change.

That leaves Michael Robert Patterson of the Arlington National Cemetery site with the claim that Forrestal committed suicide.  We hold out little hope, though, for anyone who would state as fact the ridiculous uncorroborated claim by scandalmonger and political enemy Drew Pearson that Forrestal made four previous attempts at suicide.  Furthermore, anyone who would print approvingly President George W. Bush’s war cry on the eve of his vengeful criminal assault on Afghanistan obviously just has an agenda and is not really interested in the truth.

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

Manger Moi, Manny

He's got the right idea...

He’s got the right idea…

From this old redneck (who took French in high school 40 years ago) to the Prime Minister of France:

Manger Moi!

h/t John Friend

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 government lies about everything- Paul Craig Roberts

roberts_yalmulkeWell, everything except about his hero (and former boss) Ronald Reagan, the “good war” (WWII), the “evil Nazis”, the communist takeover of our government, the “truth of the Holocaust” and about Jewish control of the country and the rest of the world.

But besides that, he’s right.

 

Further reading:

 

How Sound Is Holocaust Eyewitness testimony?

Real History: How WWI and WWII Really Started

The Historically Challenged Paul Craig Roberts

Who Are The Real Parasites?

Why Senator Joe McCarthy Had to Be Destroyed

 

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

Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless

Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless

by DC Dave

Purported journalist Marinka Peschmann is not exactly an experienced researcher on the 51dOgw0PmzLsubject and it shows in her thin little 2012 volume, Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer. One would think that this 5×8 inch paperback with only 132 pages of actual text would at least be spare with any unnecessary verbiage, but in fact the opposite is the case. It’s full of passages in which she and former Clinton White House legal office aide Linda Tripp just chew the fat, speculating about one thing or another. Not until her 12th and last chapter does she come through with her really batty theory of what actually happened the day Foster died.

“His job is clearly to play right-wing shepherd and to herd his assigned flock away from the corruption that envelops both the Democrats and the Republicans as well as our ruling media elite,” I wrote in my review of Richard Poe’s Hillary’s Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists. It’s the same with Peschmann, except that she seems both to be on, and to aim for, an IQ level a few notches lower than Poe’s. Poe was able to get a big blurb by Ann Coulter right on his dust jacket. The best Peschmann can get is a plug from Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft, a favorite whipping boy of the Fake Left web site, Media Matters, where Ben Dimiero suggests that Hoft might be “the dumbest man on the Internet.”

The following passage, which, short as it is, takes up half of the book’s penultimate page, tells you who the Peschmann audience is supposed to be, and it is surely not those she pretends to address:

A note to my secular, atheist, agnostic, and humanist friends and readers

Marinka1

Marinka Peschmann

We are all free to believe or to not believe in God. With or without the Bible verses, Following Orders is the same story. If you have a problem with references to God and to Christianity skip over the scriptures that open each chapter. When reporting on politicians who adhere to an ideology dedicated to Lucifer, I believe it is prudent to counter Lucifer with God. That said, I think it is fair to say we are all flawed. I also believe that a liar and a hypocrite, be it a person “of faith” or a “non-believer,” is still a liar and a hypocrite just like corruption, whether it appears on the right or the left of the political spectrum, is still corruption. (emphasis Peschmann’s)

Peschmann never explains how she developed such a cozy relationship with Tripp, the woman who brought Foster his last lunch, a cheeseburger, but one gets some idea of the degree of the coziness, as well as a feel for the reading experience that one is in for, with this early passage in the first chapter:

Linda Tripp

Linda Tripp

With Cleo, Linda’s golden retriever dog, gently asleep at her usual spot, in front of the living room couch, I faced the computer and clicked print. Page after page rolled out documenting the events of July 20, 1993—that was the day White House deputy counsel to the president of the United States, Vincent Walker Foster Jr., was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Fort Marcy Park in McLean, Virginia. It was the highest-ranking suicide in government since 1949, when President Truman’s secretary of defense, James Forrestal, committed suicide by throwing himself from a sixteenth floor window to his death from the Bethesda Naval Hospital.

hillary_vince

Vince Foster & Hillary Clinton

She’s still toeing the prevailing propaganda line on Forrestal (who was no longer defense secretary at the time of his death) some eight years after this writer had blown it out of the water, and it really should not surprise one to find that she really does pretty much the same with Foster. In the Foster case it is the propaganda line of the Fake Right.

We heard it early on, coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell. Yes, it might have been a suicide, they agreed, but it didn’t happen like we have been told. There had to have been something about it that was terribly embarrassing to the Clintons. Hillary and Vince had a love nest, they suggested, somewhere in Northern Virginia. Perhaps Foster killed himself there, and the body was transported to the park rolled up in a carpet and dumped. It is consistent with the thrust of reporter Christopher Ruddy’s work before he defected to the Clinton camp, and that is the theory that she is marshaling support for with the following passage:

According to an independent Foster investigation conducted by Vincent Scalice, a veteran New York City Police homicide investigator, and an expert in crime scene reconstruction, identification, and forensic analysis, and Fred D. Santucci, a Forensic Photographer and Crime Scene Expert: “Carpet-type fibers of various colors which were found on almost all of Foster’s clothing was clearly indicative of the fact that his body probably was in contact with one or more carpets. This evidence raises the possibility that his body may have been in a prone position, and/or his body may have been transported while in contact with some type of carpeting.”

She leaves out one name here. Richard Saferstein, author of the popular textbook, Criminalisitics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, was also a member of the “independent investigation” team.

Actually, there was nothing really independent about it. It was all set up by Christopher Ruddy. He roped me into the “reconstruction of the crime scene” to play the role of the Vince Foster corpse because, he said, I was the right height. I protested that I was some 30 pounds heavier than Foster and therefore unsuited for the role, but Ruddy insisted. I think his purpose was simply to get me emotionally invested in the snake oil that he was selling, which I never found all that persuasive, no matter how “expert” the people might have been, because the reconstruction took place earlier in the year than when Foster died, and conditions would have been completely different. Furthermore, all that evidence of carpet fibers on Foster’s clothing came from the FBI crime lab when, contrary to what one might learn from Ruddy or Peschmann, the FBI was, itself, deeply implicated in the Foster cover-up.

Peschmann has this lone endnote (#250) at the end of her paragraph: “Vincent J. Scalice, ‘What really happened,’ access online at: http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/vince-foster-documents-reveal-judges-deliberations-death.”

Whoa! Wait a minute! How in the world did that get there? There’s nothing about Scalice et al. in the referenced article. What’s there is the very illuminating work of Foster researcher Hugh Turley, which appears on this writer’s web site. Here we reprint it in its entirety:

71d8tzaKzbL

Documents Reveal Judges’ Deliberations on a Death

By Hugh Turley

Vincent Foster, former president Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, died nearly 18 years ago, and his death was ruled a suicide. But recent research has revealed that the judges who had appointed the independent counsel investigating his death were worried about “be[ing] charged as conspirators in the cover-up,” in the words of Judge John Butzner.

Butzner was part of a three-judge panel on the Special Division of the District of Columbia Circuit that had appointed Kenneth Starr to investigate several matters relating to the Clinton’s Whitewater land deal, an inquiry that grew to include Foster’s 1993 death.

Notes between the now-deceased Butzner and his colleagues Peter Fay and David Sentelle are part of the collection of Butzner’s papers at the University of Virginia’s law library. They show discussion about whether to include the testimony of Whitewater grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton, who had been at Fort Marcy Park the day Foster’s body was found.  As a passerby, he testified that Foster’s Honda was not at the park at the time of death.  Foster therefore could not have driven to the park in his car as claimed by Starr.

Knowlton asked the judges to include additional evidence based on official records contradicting Starr’s report: Other witnesses did not see Foster’s car, the gun found was not Foster’s, there was a bullet hole in Foster’s neck, crime scene photographs and X-rays had disappeared.   Knowlton provided evidence he was the victim of witness intimidation by Starr’s staff.

On Sept. 24, 1997, Judge Sentelle sent his colleagues Knowlton’s motion to include comments and factual information as an appendix to the report on Foster’s death. Sentelle told them: “The question of what to do with his comments is not an easy one. … If I were forced to decide the question alone, it would be my inclination to deny the motion.”

Starr Knowlton

Starr & Knowlton Click to see how this meeting came about.

Judge Fay disagreed with Sentelle. “[Knowlton] does comment on specific findings and conclusions in the report,” he argued.  “He contradicts specific factual matters and takes issue with the very basics of the report filed by the [Independent Counsel].”

The following day Butzner concurred. “I suspect if we deny the motion we will be charged as conspirators in the cover-up,” he wrote. “I suggest we let the motion and the attachments speak for themselves.”

That afternoon, Sentelle faxed his colleagues a message that, after reviewing their memos, he had changed his mind and agreed to draft an order granting the motion. So on Sept. 26, the court ordered that Knowlton’s comments and evidence be included in Starr’s report.  On Sept. 29, Starr filed a motion appealing the order. It was denied the next day, marking the first time in history that an Independent Counsel was ordered to include in his report evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators.

After Starr’s motion was denied and before the report was made public, Knowlton and his attorney visited the Associated Press office to show the reporter on the case the evidence contradicting Starr that had been ordered part of the final report.

They were not prepared for his response. “[The reporter] told us the story was already written and [the cause of death] was suicide,” Knowlton told the Hyattsville Life & Times. “We did not believe the press could ignore the court-ordered attachment.”

Now, for 13 years, the American press has not reported on the Knowlton appendix, and the attachments did not “speak for themselves” as Butzner envisioned.  But the press has reported the latest news about Kenneth Starr — he will become the president of Baylor University this June.

This article appeared originally in the April 2010 Hyattsville (MD) Life and Times.  All the documents described in the article, including the Knowlton appendix ordered included with Kenneth Starr’s report over his strenuous objection—and the objection, itself—can be found here.  The complete Starr report on Foster’s death, including the vital Knowlton appendix, is hereThe Washington Post, however, protecting Starr’s reputation in a manner that the three judges, to their credit, refused to do, have what it claims to be the full Starr report here.  In an act worthy of Pravda in the old Soviet Union, The Post has censored out the Knowlton appendix.

David Martin

April 14, 2010

Peschmann’s Scalice passage appears on page 106 of her book. At this point the reader might as well just continue with his Internet reading and ditch the book. The Knowlton appendix referred to—by dint of the judges’ decision as much a part of the official report as the work of Starr’s team—thoroughly destroys Peschmann’s thesis. She guesses that Foster, after going out and eating some more somewhere, came back to the White House shortly after 5 o’clock and shot himself in his office with his own gun and was then transported to Fort Marcy Park and dumped there by panicked fellow White House lawyers working late.

VINCE_FOSTER_HANDGUNWe learn from Knowlton’s document, though, that the widow, Lisa, was shown a silver gun and told that it was the one found at the park, when the gun found at the park was black and therefore not the one that the family brought up from Arkansas. The gun, then, appears to have been planted. We also learn that the one wound seen at the park by witnesses was to Foster’s neck—an apparent bullet entrance wound—and no one there saw any exit wound in the back of the head, much less the half-dollar-sized one that was shown in the autopsy sketch. The missing fatal bullet that Peschmann makes a big fuss about was likely not missing at all but still in Foster’s head. The “malfunctioning” X-ray machine that failed to detect the bullet was not malfunctioning at all; the corrupt autopsy doctor, James Beyer, simply falsified the autopsy report.

The best evidence strongly indicates that Foster was driven to Fort Marcy Park—which happens, by coincidence or not, to FT MARCY PARKbe quite near CIA headquarters—where he was surprised by someone who pressed a small caliber pistol to his neck and fired it upward into his brain. That is the scenario strongly suggested by Starr’s lead investigator, Miguel Rodriguez, in his resignation letter and his memorandum for the record.

Peschmann makes no mention of Rodriguez. Her one reference to Knowlton comes in the second sentence of her climactic Chapter 12, “At 4:30 p.m., on July 20, 1993, according to an eyewitness, Foster’s car was not at the parking lot at Fort Marcy Park.”

The accompanying endnote, no. 294, has this reference, “Kenneth W. Starr, Independent Counsel, Report of the Death of Vincent W. Foster, October 10, 1997, Appendix to Report; September 23, 1997 letter from Patrick Knowlton’s attorney, John H. Clarke.”

So there it is again, but the reader, unless he ferrets it out for himself, would never guess how significant that appendix, and its inclusion in the report over Starr’s objection, really is. Thanks to that earlier endnote, though, not a great deal of ferreting is required. It’s right there in the links, and the accompanying article explains its significance.

Having revealed what newspaper, magazine, and book writers across the political spectrum have worked hard to conceal, Marinka Peschmann, then, has managed to write a book that is not altogether worthless. One can only wonder if she knows it.

David Martin

January 2, 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

Happy Jew Year! But Is It Worth It?

I have sat down to this pc several times over the past week, hoping to come up with some sort of witty New Year themed post. Each and every time I stare blankly at the screen and cannot think of anything else to say that hasn’t been said here countless times.

It reminds me of the time an old friend took notice of the blog and shared here for a while. Another acquaintance learned of my blog and made a comment like: “Just great, that’s what we need, ANOTHER blogger’s opinion”.

Really, that’s all this place has ever been, at least since I began to understand the Jewish quotient.

And now, it is just another blog that talks about the Jewish influence on America and the world. I talk about the one thing that most are too ignorant to understand, too busy to be bothered, or are accepting of this fact.

I keep coming back to the same question:

Is It Worth It?

Is it worth the time and effort I used to put in to it (I don’t work at it near as much as I once did)? Is it worth it for what little results I am able to obtain? Is it worth putting up with the incessant stalkers like Phil Lings and Salvatore that post EVERY day, sometimes two or three times per day?

Then, just this morning, I received an email from John Kaminski asking the same types of questions:

You have to wonder about the sanity of those deluded dupes still waving their flags as our soldiers come home from their mass murder assignments around the world and are treated like heroes when they’re really nothing more than brutal, mind-controlled assassins. Wasn’t it established at Nuremberg that following illegal orders is a crime punishable by death? By now, hasn’t everybody figured out that Al-Qaeda was an invention of the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services, and that this new so-called enemy that America is bombing in Syria was really created by Israel with help from the U.S. and its other flunkie states?

What kind of people cheer wars they know are wrong? What kind of leaders make jokes about the innocent victims they kill without even knowing who they are? What kind of people accept a president whose background is kept totally secret while the most personal secrets of ordinary people are totally exposed; nobody can conceal anything, which leaves them defenseless against exploitation by a government that regards them as something less than human beings?

These questions frequently come up in conversations between people who have been trying to tell the truth about the lies we’ve been told that are stealing our lives and destroying our future.

We ask each other —  Why try to explain things to people who don’t really want to know? What kind of misanthropes are we trying to help?

A bunch of misguided and ungrateful dummies — that’s who — who don’t even realize their own government is trying to rob and kill them? More interested in getting drunk and listening to songs meant for emotional retards than in fulfilling the tasks necessary for their own survival.

What’s the point in trying to save an ungrateful mob of thoughtless drecks, addicted to self-destructive trivialities, oblivious to the murders conducted in their names around the world and hooked on meaningless rituals, habits and compulsions that actually shorten their own lives.

It doesn’t seem worth it in many ways. And its not me just searching for Big Numbers. This place will never get the hits that blogs supported by the Agenda will get. As a matter of fact, my numbers are a fraction of last year’s hits. But what I do get is a great bunch of commenters (by and large… only two are now relegated permanently to the Spam Hell folder… I am sure that will grow as the others who I released from Spam Hell decide to come back and give this place even more grief). I get people visiting here that are obviously interested in the subject matter and those that offer excellent insight and additional information to assist me in learning more.

I have a knack for alienating myself from certain places that others seem to embrace. Maybe its just personal preference/taste. But in some cases, it blows my mind because I know I would never in a million years send someone to those places from here, unless there was a big caveat explaining why I was sending them. But there are a bunch of places I do recommend (see them on the right side panel). I don’t see any of them stopping, so why would I? I still get many incoming hits from Kenny’s site (and he died).

Maybe I’ll change things up a little bit. I don’t know. But I know that the battle has yet to be won (much less the war). So, like John, I can’t give up:

It would be easy for us to give up trying to expose the truth if we didn’t know so many people we admire and respect trying to do the same thing. So despite the fact that hope is slim that we’ll be able to overcome this brutal Jewish blotting out of human consciousness, none of the people I know who are committed to telling the truth are ever going to stop, no matter what happens.

It isn’t a matter of what we could lose by doing this. It’s a matter that life is not worth living in the prison they’re creating for us, and we’re not about to let it happen, no matter how powerful they are or how coercive they become.

The fact is that there aren’t many of us out there telling the truth. We need to support each other best we can, while also being vigilant that infiltrators and ambushers are taken out (like the two Spam Hell inhabitants with ZERO opportunity to ever have a comment posted here again). Tell me all about free speech and all… then I will tell you that your free speech doesn’t work in my house, when you are attacking me or my friends and commenters. If anyone came into my home and did the shit that the stalkers did here, I assure you they would leave with a size 11 up their ass and a bruised noggin. Free speech doesn’t mean you can come in my home and attack those that are enjoying each other’s company.

Yes, there are some people that need the information found here and at my links, even if there are more worthless kowtowing assholes:

The vast majority of Americans can’t see beyond the end of their own driveways, don’t really care about the fate of their neighbors, and think the meaning of the word community is the distance between the two nearest malls.

But enough about them. It’s fair to say the majority of Americans are not worth saving, being utterly unfamiliar with their own consciences.

But it’s also fair to say that I know a lot of people who are worth saving, and they are a distinct minority in America today.

They are the people who know that 9/11 was a hoax, that the wars which followed were totally unjust criminal actions, and that all of America’s elected officials are really prison wardens assisting in the robbery and murder of the American people.

How can you trust a population that has endured phony elections without protesting, tolerated criminal presidents who have covered up the truth, sent all our jobs overseas and demolished the Constitution?

Among the many types of people who are decidedly not worth saving are the writers, publishers and website operators who pretend to be champions of the opposition but are really saboteurs of this chaotic movement for human freedom.

Every year I ask myself is it worth it. Every year, I see the need, while also knowing I barely make a dent in the problem.

Will 2015 be Happy? From all indications, probably not.

But let us hope for it!

While we Breathe, We will Hope!

B’Man


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

Judge Posner’s One-Way Mirror

Judge Posner’s One-Way Mirror

by DC Dave

I wrote and posted on my web site the following poem a little more than a year ago:

 The One-Way Mirror

 “Freedom of information”

Is in a tyrannical mess

Big Brother knows more and more,

While he shows us less and less.

6a00d8341c730253ef01b8d05e1526970c

Now, as reported by Glenn Greenwald, federal judge Richard Posner has come forward to tell us that that is exactly how things should be. “Like so many federal judges,” writes Greenwald, “Judge Posner recognizes rights only when they belong to agents of the state or the economic elite. When it’s ordinary citizens at issue, he snidely rejects any such protections. Of course, this is exactly backwards: those exercising public power (police officers) have a lower entitlement to privacy than private individuals. But power-servants like Judge Posner view only actors of the state and those who serve it (such as himself) as entitled to these prerogatives. That’s become the corrupt essence of the U.S. justice system, and it’s perfectly expressed by Judge Posner’s radically divergent views based on whose privacy is at stake.”

It comes as no surprise to us that Judge Posner, described by Wikipedia as “the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century,” should emerge as the perfect spokesman for our controlling criminal elite. Here, reprinted with refreshed links, is the short article we wrote about him in 1999. It is the sort of thing that you will not be reading in organs of the “approved Left opposition,” such as Salon magazine, where Greenwald rose to national prominence.

Posner, the Propagandist

No, not that one. There’s another one out there. Check this out:

Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Seventh CircuitThe true “Clinton haters” are only the fringe of the considerable opposition to him, but a fringe that bled into and in the eyes of many contaminated the investigation and prosecution of his suspected crimes. The fringe has beliefs best described as paranoid fantasies such as that Vince Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel who committed suicide early in Clinton’s first term, was murdered because he knew too much about the Clintons’ complicity in Whitewater crimes; that Clinton when Governor of Arkansas had operated an international drug-trafficking ring from a secret airport in the state; that Clinton is or was a cocaine addict and as a result has had to have surgery on his nose (cocaine destroys the septum); and that his supporters regularly murder anyone who might reveal his illegalities to the world. In or near the fringe is the wealthy philanthropist, Richard Mellon Scaife, who has financed investigations into whether Vince Foster was murdered. (That Foster was murdered is the core, the defining, belief of the Clinton haters.)

–Richard A. Posner, An Affair of State, The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton. Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 62-63

Do we need any more evidence of the corruption of our institutions? How would you like to have the man who penned those lines of pure, unadulterated propaganda passing judgment over you in a court of law or deciding whether you pass or fail in a law school class? Richard A. Posner is a noted legal scholar with many books and articles to his credit. He is also the chief judge of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (See Judge Richard A. Posner), but when it comes to the matter of the highest ranking federal official since President Kennedy to die a suspicious, violent death, all he has to offer is childish name-calling and the brazen dragging of red herrings.

As a learned legal professional he would certainly know that we are not dealing in “beliefs” here, but a very large body of evidence that simply has to be swept under the rug or the government would fall. So he does his part by sweeping most vigorously. He can get by with characterizing the charges of the doubters of the official government/press line with respect to the worst of the scandals as “paranoid fantasies” because the news of the existence of the Clarke/Knowlton addendum to the Starr Report on Foster has been completely suppressed, as has a lot of other important news. You can read the addendum at FBICOVER-UP.COM to see what they are keeping from you. Judge Posner certainly knows all about it, but he writes with the smug assurance that most of you are ignorant. Tyrants have always liked it best that way.

David Martin

September 8, 1999

 

Since 1999 we have discovered quite a bit more evidence that Judge Posner, with what he wrote in his book, was a participant in the cover-up of a high level murder. That evidence is perhaps best summed up in our most recent article on the subject, “Dissenting Memo Surfaces from Starr Team,” about the frustration that Kenneth Starr’s first chief investigator, Miguel Rodriguez, encountered before he was forced to resign in disgust. Before that, we also published Rodriguez’s very damning resignation letter, which, like the memorandum, has been completely blacked out by the press.

Two members of Starr’s murder cover-up team who did not dissent, John Bates and Brett Kavanaugh, have since been rewarded for their work with appointments to the federal bench. Along with Judge Posner they demonstrate beyond doubt that our federal judiciary is not about truth and justice; it is about raw, naked, corrupt power. Glenn Greenwald’s recent revelations that, in Posner’s view, only the power wielders have any right to privacy is only so much icing on the cake.

David Martin

December 20, 2014

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

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

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