As mentioned here on Tuesday, The New Criterion has published a symposium on Diana West’s book American Betrayal. One of the letters featured was written by the historian Conrad Black, who has repeatedly denounced Ms. West over her analysis of the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
A commenter named Brett Woods — a self-identified soldier in the “Kook Army” — took exception to what Mr. Black said in this well-sourced response:
“The slightest dalliance with the notion that the U.S. government was at any time or in any way motivated by anything but the national interest plausibly interpreted and pursued by those at the head of the administrations attacked by Ms. West is unrigorous and outrageous.”
— Conrad Black
The court historian of the glorious FDR has spoken. Don’t look any further — if you do, you will “split the American Right, render it ineffective” and deliver the governance of the US into the hands of progressives in all eternity. That seems to be the gist of it.
If it wasn’t for the fact that this view so obviously is being imposed upon conservatives by powerful forces, it would actually make for a good laugh. But things being as they are, it seems all the more necessary to try and add some accuracy concerning FDR’s performance especially during WWII and up to the crucial Yalta conference 1945.
Yalta was after all FDR’s chance to really show what he was made of, once again representing the free world, eyeball to eyeball with the most repressive genocidal maniac of the world, the “man of steel”, Joseph Stalin.
The first round in Teheran 1943 clearly went to Stalin as FDR had to be taken to his quarters after he famously fainted, “turned green and great drops of sweat began to bead off his face.”[1]
But how did Yalta go? Was it the shining hour of the glorious FDR, as the court historians claim, or the epic fail of a demented cripple?
To answer these questions it is helpful to look at some of the eye-witness reports concerning FDR’s overall fitness and mental capacity at the time before Yalta.
Turner Catledge, a NYT reporter had the following assessment after having met FDR in march of 1944: “When I first entered the President’s office, I had my first glimpse of him in several months. I was shocked and horrified—so much so that my impulse was to turn around and leave. I felt I was seeing something I wasn’t supposed to see. . . . He was sitting there with a vague, glassy eyed expression and his mouth hanging open. . . . Reluctantly, I sat down and we started to talk. . . . He would start talking about something, then in mid-sentence he would stop and his mouth would drop open . . . and he sat staring at me in silence. I knew I was looking at a terribly sick man.”[2]
Note: I have sourced the quotes below for easy verification, but they were not compiled by myself. They are all found in Evans/Romerstein 2012 game-changing book Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, pp. 21-24.
Labor Secretary Frances Perkins expanded on this condition when she recalled “the change in appearance had to do with the oncoming of a kind of glassy eye, and an extremely drawn look around the jaw and cheeks, and even a sort of dropping of the muscles of control of the jaw and mouth . . . if you saw him close, you could see that his hands were weak. . . . When he fainted, as he did occasionally, that was all accentuated. It would be very brief, and he’d be back again.”[3]
And this apparently wasn’t just the occasional “bad day” for the POTUS, because as former Democratic national chairman Jim Farley remarked : “From the time of his return from Teheran in December, 1943 there were disturbing reports about Roosevelt’s health. Hundreds of persons, high and low, reported to me that he looked bad, his mind wandered, his hands shook, his jaw sagged and he tired easily. Almost everyone who came in had some story about the President’s health—directly or indirectly—from any one of various doctors who examined him. . . . Members of the Cabinet, senators, congressmen, members of the White House staff, various Federal officials and newspapermen carried a variety of reports on the President’s failing health.”[4]
Because of his declining health, FDR would choose to spend long periods away from Washington, a month at Bernhard Baruch’s estate and a lengthy voyage to Hawaii among other things, and he would be under doctors’ orders to sleep as much as possible, working no more than 4 hours a day.
As we move forward, to the actual Yalta conference, things certainly didn’t seem to shape up for FDR. Churchill’s doctor Lord Moran, present at the conference wrote, that “to a doctor’s eye, the President appears a sick man… he sat looking straight ahead with his mouth open, as if he wasn’t taking things in”.[5]
A view corroborated by Sir Alexander Cadogan of the British Foreign office who remarked: “Whenever FDR was called on to preside over any meeting, he failed to make any attempt to grip it or guide it, and sat generally speechless, or, if he made any intervention, it was generally completely irrelevant.”[5]
Among the many irrelevancies uttered by FDR at Yalta, Stanton Evans found the following curious exchange with Stalin concerning FDR’s next meeting with Ibn Saud later edited out of the record.
“MARSHALL STALIN then said he thought more time was needed to consider and finish the business of the conference.
THE PRESIDENT answered that he had three Kings waiting for him in the Near East, including Ibn Saud
MARSHALL STALIN asked whether the President intended to make any concessions to Ibn Saud.
THE PRESIDENT replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to give him the six million jews in the united states.”[6]Now, I am not a historian so this may not at all be what it seems, namely the utter failure of FDR to perform the most elementary duties to his country. Come to think of it, it may be part of what established historians like Conrad Black call “masterpieces of pure, Great Power grand strategy, not flawlessly executed, but brilliant in conception, execution, and result all the same.”
1. Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History New York: Norton, 1973, p. 143 2. Turner Catledge, My Life and the Times New York: Harper & Row, 1971, p. 144. 3. Lomazow and Fettmann, FDR’s Deadly Secret, p. 153 4. James A. Farley, Jim Farley’s Story New York: Whittlesey House, 1948, pp. 363—65 5. Lomazow and Fettmann, FDR’s Deadly Secret, pp. 166—69 6. Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, p.24
For links to previous articles about the controversy over American Betrayal, see the Diana West Archives.
The question that comes to mind after reading this very insightful article is this:
If FDR was as sick as has been described at these very important conferences and in other places, which to a doctor was obvious, then why wasn’t Henry Wallace and later, Harry Truman, not utilized in their position as VP to replace a sick president instead?
makes me wonder who is in chg of the WH in Administrations, like now is it Valerie Jarrett on the Islam side, and then of course the Elite. They do not go together, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Elite vs Islam
tess, if one can accept that we have been continually lied to for many decades by various governments, then and only then, can one seek the truth.
In my endeavouring to unearth what it is that can cause elected governments to undermine their own people, it has come to me that what we are facing is a multi-faced cabal of business/industrial/military connections that pick and choose which side it is at any time in history to promote so as to further cement their own self interests.
Who paid for Lenin’s revolution and Hitler’s rise to power?
We the little people are just pawns in their game for world domination, a New World Order if you wish to call it that. Even Reagan was forced to mix with ‘one-time’ Nazis to shore up his political numbers which is a graphic example of how well placed the socialists of all stripes are within positions of influence.
I believe it to be quite obvious that Obama and the majority of the Democrats are Marxist. If you can accept that, then what does that make the RINO who have been heavily influenced by some very powerful Nazis in the past?
A ‘ Multi-faced cabal…….’. Absolutely correct, but that cabal is made up of real people, even if they mostly wish to remain
anonymous, at all costs. What we need is
to see their faces, hear their names and be told who is at the apex of this conspiracy.
‘What we need is to see their faces, hear their names and be told who is at the apex of this conspiracy’
That is a fair comment, but while the media is under their control and compromised politicians get elected, we will remain their pawns.
Their hold over those whom they indirectly control is to such an extent through personal, family and business/political dealings, that no one of conscience has the inclination, let alone even the temerity, of exposing them.
Individually, where and what would it get them?
Besides, who would believe anyone who came forward out of concern to expose those who really control the world such as the Bilderbergs, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, The Trilateral Commission, The Masons, the United Nations etc, etc.
Look what became of Bernie Madoff when he decided to go it alone!
Modern Democracy is an illusion while ever the media/finance/government are controlled by the shadows of totalitarianism who really move the world!
When was history ever any different?
Dynastic control of areas has always been the case since the beginning of time. That’s what human beings do.
The best we can hope for is to keep our own spot on earth as clean as possible. IOW, that we can trust those with whom we do business and do our best to dismantle the worst of it here and there. For example, looking at the efforts to expose and close the Gulen school movement in this country is encouraging.
We can’t realistically deal with myth – and at the “Bilderberg” level, it’s myth because no one ever reading this space can tell us of their personal experience with any Bilderburgs. MEGO time. OTOh at the Gulen level, it becomes real.
Democracy has always been an illusion. The rule of law, representative government, etc., is another story. The level of corruption and abstraction is rising. As Walter Williams says, you only own something to the extent that you are free to dispose of it as you wish…and those freedoms are becoming ever more restricted.
Totalitarianism is a problem – experientially, existentially, etc. As the world population implodes such issues may become moot, but other problems await over the horizon.
It’s like the difference between our consensus, quotidian reality and the reality of particle physics. Both are real, but we can only live on one level and we can only solve – and resolve – issues on that level, even while we know the other is also “true”.
To talk about the Bilderburgs, et al, is to introduce insoluble dystopian topics that have no resolution.
Dymphna, your own nation was never meant to be in the scheme of things. The embryonic ‘United States’ was an aberration from the norm of controlled European states that had most of those states gagging at the bit to put an end to ‘American Liberty’ that was so loudly proclaimed by your founding fathers.
It has taken over two hundred years to achieve that desired result at the hands of the worlds manipulators, who like a wind that constantly changes direction have learnt to flow with the prevailing breeze when it suits them.
Yes, control has always been seen as an advantage over those who like to be controlled by those who love exercising it. But it has become more than just simple control techniques over the past 100 years, we are now witnessing a herding technique of pushing populations into accepting more authority over their lives than what was once practised or would have even been accepted.
The event of 9/11 is a graphic example of this control technique that is causing ever more authoritarian exercise over whole populations of people that once considered their personal liberty as sacrosanct. The price of liberty has always been vigilance against those who would exercise tyranny over them, but the majority have meekly accepted protection from a pseudo-enemy by a government whose aim is not to protect, but to imprison.
Most Bilderberg attendees have gone on to become leaders of their nation or abettors in Bilderberg aspirations. The fact that the Bilderberg group was founded by a Dutch Nazi and promotes its own agenda with famous people of politics must speak volumes to those who follow this secretive group. I wonder what is it they wish to hide?
Life experience would suggest to most thinkers that those groups who host the prominent people of politics and other occupations at venues that are off limits to public or media access, like the Bilderbergs etc, also have a secret agenda. Most of our current and past world leaders have all attended the Bilderberg Group meetings at one time or another before taking up their political duties. Some have returned on more than two occasions, like Henry Kissinger.
There are several aspects to the Bilderberg Group that demand attention by those who consider their personal liberty paramount. And those are;
a. Many prominent present and past world leaders have attended at least one Bilderberg meeting.
b. All media are excluded from Bilderberg meetings.
c. All attendees are sworn to secrecy.
d. Many Bilderberg attendees have gone on to become political leaders of their nations.
It is because of not putting Bilderberg meetings under the spotlight that we now have a Western political agenda that will in time destroy the nation state and strip what remains of our liberties from us to the point that we will all return to being serfs to the state.
Secrecy is what protects the Bilderbergs, The Trilateral Commission etc, from any scrutiny that would alert us freedom loving folk about a not so freedom promoting agenda that those who are SELECTED to attend Bilberberg meetings have in mind for us.
These secretive organizations that President Kennedy once referred to as ‘secret societies’ must be exposed for what they are if we are to maintain the freedoms we have fought so many centuries for to achieve.
Otherwise, what is there left to live for?
The reason that I began to study Islam is because, in studying the New World Order (which is the goal of some combo of the groups above), I came to realize that the NWO is purposely introducing and using Muslims as a tool to conquer Western peoples.
Yes, there is most definitely a link between the New World Order aspirants and Islam.
Remember also, that the Nazis were heavily into promoting Islam within the Balkans and had several battalions of SS Muslim troops who wreaked havoc in that area against the Serbs and Croatians.
What most folk do not realize that it was the German military machine that was defeated in World War 2, not the Nazis, who managed to escape in their thousands via the Vatican Ratlines and ODESSA to all points of the compass.
Operation Paperclip also introduced hundreds of bona fide Nazis into American industry/military/government. Did you realize that the CIA is based on the German military intelligence, Abwehr?
When many study recent world history they find it difficult to reconcile the difference between a more peaceful and isolationist America prior to WW2 as compared to the very imperialist actions of American actions since. Perhaps the difference between a more peaceful and let live America of the past and the more aggressive America that we are now familiar with is the result of all that Nazi influence?
Islam and Nazism are similar and compatible ideologies so long as there are Jews or infidels to be rid of. But they cease to be compatible once their common enemy becomes extinct! The Communists – and I believe Obama is a Marxist Muslim – like to play various cultures against each other for their own benefit and will ally themselves with the Devil himself if they can gain an advantage from it. All three ideologies will not stand the test of time because they are all self destructive, and even if they make non-aggression pacts ( treaties ) with each other, each ideology will in time seek to destroy the other two ideologies as not being in their own best interests to let live.
And that is the nature of the many headed Beast that we are being forced to fight today.
“Lengthy voyages to Hawaii”??
For his health.
Did he also play golf?
Poor Churchill, the only sane one in the troika…and the Brits threw him out.
———————————————-
Makes you wonder, though, why anyone, especially a journalist – oops, make that a newspaper owner ennobled for his work – would choose to canonize a man whom he surely knew to be compromised? No doubt he made some strange, warped calculus that is beyond the likes of us mere mortals to comprehend.
The karmic debt this group is accruing is indeed aweful to behold. FDR is not the only one with a gaping jaw and glazed eyes.
Let’s hope the gods are merciful rather than just or those boyos will never recover their spines. With each new unnatural act in this extended immorality play, the characters appear more twisted than before. Yet they don’t seem able to help themselves, this Suicide Squad slithering from venue to venue…
Don’t you wonder where they’ll be cratering next?
I am naive, I believe that it is truth that sets us free, and that the search for truth is what is important.
If ‘truth’ splits ‘conservatism’ then it is the conservatism that has the problem, not truth (or the search for truth).
These guys want to preserve the status quo which we know to be misleading because the USSR sphere of influence came out of the conflict doubled in size, this, a nation that invaded Poland almost at the same time, this, a nation which executed 22,000 Poles just for being educated…
I disagree with Dymphna’s hero-worshipping of Churchill, but it hardly matters. The real hard man and
clever b’stard here was Stalin. He was street-wise, unlike
the other two, and utterly ruthless. He got most of what he wanted, and destroyed so many lives in his own country, as to make Adolf look like a rosy-cheeked choirboy.
If my admiration of Churchill, which you ramp up to “hero-worship”, hardly matters then why your need to mention it at all? Your assessment of Stalin could well have stood on its own. Was it simply not as personally satisfying as sly disdain?
In addition to not liking the cut of your jib, sducain, I disagree with your view on Churchill re his lack of street wisdom. Unlike the other two, Churchill had fought in various wars and knew well how to survive battles, bureaucracy, and personal treachery. Unlike the other two, he wasn’t later proved to be villainous or corrupt. And unlike Stalin, Churchill didn’t resort to murdering his political allies.
In addition, nothing could make Hitler look like a “rosy-cheeked choirboy”. That trivializes evil. The differences between the two mass-murderers was quantitative not qualitative.
In addition to being unnecessarily unpleasant, your jibes are careless.
> then why wasn’t Henry Wallace <
maybe fdr did do us a favour.
From memory of reading Churchill’s war diaries, over 6 years ago, Churchill could not understand why His friend, FDR chose to ignore his warnings about Joe! I do wonder that if Stalin had not badly needed the material help from the allies weather the USA would have sorted Japan out first before worrying about europe? After reading the diaries, I wondered about Stalins whole strategy ! he was feeding and arming Germany right up to the second Hitler invaded Russia, Churchill had warned him of the armed build up across the boarder, as had Stalins spies in Switzerland, yet he kept up the pretence, I wonder if he intended to have Hitler exhaust his armies invading England and then stroll in to all of europe?
Stalin expected a prolonged campaign in France, 1914/18 style, and to be able to mop up afterwards.
Chris, when studying the Second World War one must leave behind the thinking that Hitler in 1940/41 was insane or an idiot, because an army does not roll over Europe almost unopposed without some very intensive thinking and training based on tactics, strategy and weaponry.
Too, Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union while leaving England undefeated because he was stupid, Hitler knew that to wage a war on two fronts would become a difficult war for Germany, but he had prior knowledge that the Soviets were planning to attack Germany and take over Europe. When one considers the easy time that Operation Barbarossa gave the Germans in 1941 against the Soviets, one must also consider why it was such an easy exercise in rolling over a perceived threat.
One reason to consider is that the Soviets were amassing on the German/Russian border and were almost ready to attack Germany. The Soviets were in no position to defend, which in military strategy gives the army that is surprised by an attacking enemy they are planning to attack a decided disadvantage.
Consider also that Stalin did nothing for weeks when approached by his generals to resist by counter attacking and allowed the Germans their head. The Soviets were completely outclassed by the German Blitzkrieg method of warfare and its more modern army and weaponry. The Soviets were also completely outclassed by the Luftwaffe who had complete mastery of the air.
So what was Stalin and his closest advisers, like Kruschev thinking?
American aid maybe? Which in the end turned out to be some $200 billion that America could not afford.
But was this an outcome that had already been planned some years before with the same group of people who had given money to Lenin for his ‘revolution’ and then later assisted Hitler into power?
Consider also that Rudolf Hess went on his ‘peace mission’ to England about the same time as Operation Barbarossa was in progress which was designed to undermine Churchill’s fingernail grip on government and bring England to support the fight against Bolshevism which many in the English establishment fully supported.
Consider also Hitler’s order to cease attacking the British army at Dunkirk to which some of his generals almost rebelled against. Why would Hitler have allowed the rescue of so many of the Englander enemy if not to use them later against Stalin?
Diana West has opened a huge can of worms with her book American Betrayal, but it is a can of worms that must be exposed if we are to undermine those who are trying to control us.
“Why would Hitler have allowed the rescue of so many of the Englander enemy if not to use them later against Stalin?”
Can you please expand on this topic? 🙂
If Nemesis will forgive my replying to Egghead’s query, Hitler did hope to involve Britain in the fight against Bolshevism, regarding us as a natural ally.
He was however (and fortunately) a lousy stategist; the Luftwaffe, like the Red Air Force, was regarded primarily as close support for the troops, which only works when not on the defensive; only the British and Americans properly pursued strategic bombing, albeit at terrible cost in crews. Yet as late as 1943 Hitler could or would not see that given the destruction wrought on Germany and its limited resources, especially up against the US’ capacity for mass production, he should concentrate on production of defensive fighters; men and materiel were wasted on the 1943-4 “Baby Blitz” on Britain and the V-weapons.
Hitler had a soft spot for Britain, and it was this which led him to make the strategic mistake of not
invading Britain immediately after
Dunkirk. That was the right strategic opportunity for multiple
landings on the British coasts. With
Britain out of the war, pray tell me where the US was going to base their air war against Adolf ? Then
FDR could have given the Soviets
not just 500,000 war vehicles, but
10 million and all the rest, but it would have made no difference. AH
would only have to leave a skeleton
force in Europe, and could have taken EVERY hectare of the Soviet Union with the additional 500,000
plus troops. Then the US could go play toy soldiers with themselves, the World would have been a different place, and we’d all be
speaking German.
Alternatively, if the lazy B had only managed to get out of his pit on D-Day and give the order for tanks to reinforce the beaches … what then?
“Nothing in politics happens by chance”.
Those words were uttered by a British politician whose name now eludes me, but whose position in the Thatcher government was also within the Cabinet.
If one considers those words as being based on fact and not fancy, then many dots can be joined when trying to understand the political/business machinations that have given us our present recorded history.
Egghead asks for elaboration of why Hitler would deliberately call off destroying the virtually helpless British Expeditionary Force (BEF) at Dunkirk. Hitler’s rise to power came about from American and British financial investments in German industry that had aligned itself with the future of Germany under National Socialism.
Many bankers and manufacturers in Britain and America sympathized with the Nazi ideology, many believing it was the key to the New World Order as compared to Soviet Communism.
For instance:
Influential people such as Walter C. Teagle, Chairman of Standard Oil made sure that the Luftwaffe received almost unlimited supplies of tetraethyl lead, an additive to aircraft engines that the Germans and Japanese were not able to produce.
Without that product there may have been no World War as we now know it.
Hitler did not want war with either Britain or America from which he received his financial and industrial backing and this was one of the many reasons for ‘mercy’ shown to the BEF.
This is a subject that probably should be expanded into an essay?
S Ducain- At the risk of sounding like an “anorak” (nerd?), WW2 aviation is an interest of mine.
The Pentagon was planning the bombardment of Germany in 1941, before the US was involved. The B-17 and B-24 could reach Germany from Britain; the next generation, the B-29 from Ireland or North Africa if we fell, and the B-36, which entered service in 1947 (its development having been slowed), with eighteen hours’ endurance, could have reached Germany from the US.
All very well, but a couple of snags there. If Germany had taken the UK, it would certainly have taken Northern Ireland and any sniff of US bomber being shipped to Eire would have resulted in a speedy invasion of that tiny island.the same goes for North Africa as they had Rommel, and would not have screwed up the fuel situation for him
if holding that area had been crucial.
As regards 18 hours endurance, that would have been cutting it fine to get from the US to Germany AND BACK with a very heavy load of fuel and bombs, with the Luftwaffe harrying them most of the time. The Germans designed an aircraft to cross the Atlantic fully laden with bombs and fully fuelled up for the return journey, but in practice it ran out of juice. As far as I know no
definitive tests were done by the US
that would prove the 18 hour max
you claim.
The weakness of Blitzkreig is long term logistics, so Stalin, in trading land for in depth defense created a logistics nightmare for the Germans, and we find German troops without vital winter clothing, within sight of Moscow, but with tanks that could not be started up because of frozen oil, and a lack of effective air support. They lost…
I wonder if the NKVD/KGB also penetrated the Nazi high command?
The Germans lost against Russia because they had to keep over 500,000 extra troops in Europe. The war on two fronts was what they should have avoided.
s ducain- I’m not claiming that the Pentagon strategists were infallible, just that their calculation in 1941 was that if Britain fell, there would be bases available in N Ireland (which would have required an additional amphibious assault by the Nazis, likely opposed by the Royal Navy operating
s ducain- I’m not claiming that the Pentagon strategists in 1941 were infallible. But their scenario assumed that the US would be in the war against Germany, so (I’m guessing) an amphibious invasion of any part of Ireland would likely be opposed by British, Commonwealth and US naval and air forces.
Rommel’s supply lines were under constant sea and air attack by the Brits even before the Americans arrived, thanks in no small part to our (barely) hanging onto Malta (check out the story of the American-built tanker, the “Ohio”, one of the most heroic and moving episodes of the war). Where the Pentagon’s plans might have failed, though they weren’t to know this, was in the difficult and protracted development of the B-29, which entered service only in late 1943, and was deployed to China and the Pacific as not then being essential for Europe.
The development of the B-36, begun only in ’41, was slowed when it became clear that it wouldn’t be needed for the present conflict, but when it entered service in ’47 it did have an endurance of eighteen hours without airborne refuelling (a British invention!); in the late 1940s- mid ’50s B-36s were deployed to Japan, Turkey and (unofficially) Britain, covering the Soviet Union.
Regarding fighter opposition to bombers, there was a pre-WW2 mantra that “the bomber will always get through”. The Luftwaffe and RAF learned the hard way that this wasn’t so, at least by daylight, and switched to less accurate night bombing. When the US 8th Airforce arrived here from 1942, with their B-17s and (later) -24s, and computer-controlled Norden bombsights (which worked only by day, and not in the frequent cloudy conditions over Europe), bristling with defensive guns, they found out the hard way that the mantra was out of date. By late 1943, your young men (I’m assuming you’re American?) were falling from the sky in burning ‘planes by day in greater numbers than ours by night, a debt we can never repay. Only the arrival of long-range escort fighters reversed the odds.
The Germans had ideas about bombing the US (as a trial, a six-engined Junkers Ju290 flew from Brittany to within sight of New York and back); by 1945 “New York Bombers” were under development.
Post-WW2, high-altitude British and US reconnaissance ‘planes frequently penetrated Soviet airspace, without loss until Gary Powers’ U-2 in ’62- which prompted the development of the SR-71 Blackbird. But I daresay all the non-aircraft buffs are asleep by now…
.. Self interest; indeed. Now that is a subject dear Conrad would be a master of.
Has anyone seen Hitchcock’s movie ‘Notorious!’ lately?
Has anyone ever considered whether FDR might have been either 1) under the influence of mind-altering drugs and suggestion (i.e., New Deal architect Harry Hopkins LIVED in the White House for years and surely maintained extensive personal access to FDR.), or 2) slowly poisoned – and then purposely sent by Soviet agents of influence into negotiations to be a clueless dupe?
Perhaps someone should ask a doctor to review the evidence…..
“In 1942, Hopkins married Louise Macy, his third and final marriage.[23] Macy was a divorced, gregarious former editor for Harper’s Bazaar. The two continued to live at the White House at Roosevelt’s request,[28] though Louise eventually demanded a home of their own. Hopkins ended his long White House stay on December 21, 1943, moving with his wife to a Georgetown townhouse.[29]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins
Yes, I am indeed starting to see why the allegedly-ex-card-carrying-Communist progressive great white hope David Horowitz might NOT want modern people to consider the situation too closely….
Oh, and while we are considering important people who are under the influence of mind-altering drugs and suggestion, we should remember another who has freely admitted to engaging in significant recreational drug use. What would make anyone think that significant drug use – and the psychological reasons for it – just disappear?
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/18/white-house-insider-you-dont-ever-wanna-do-the-things-ive-done/
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/06/10/senator-feinsteins-very-specific-code-word-regarding-barack-obama/
On Horowitz – You can take the man out of communism, but you can’t take the communist out of the man!
I believe the descriptive word, Anschluss, very aptly describes what the American government has now become.
I wouldn’t like to be in Conrad Black’s clothes – if he has any. At least he has been caught with his trousers down. Lying for so many years………..
I have just finished reading American Betrayal and felt that Diana West made some compelling arguments which appear to make more sense than does much of the established narrative. Although, as I am not a historian, I can not say how much of what she says is actually correct, but what I can say is that nothing in Miss West’s book merits the degree of vitriol and personal abuse which has been thrown at her.
The disproportionate, unpleasant and defamatory nature of the attacks can only serve to make one deeply suspicious of those making the attacks and of their motives. If it is true that you can judge a person by the nature and behavior of their enemies then both Diana West and her book can only benefit from that judgement.
I have read West’s book and have followed the aftermath closely. The Baron’s Plant X analogy is correct. All things being human we cannot ever know what is in the heart and minds. Just read her book and come to your own conclusions. You will not find another truth on this planet.
Henry A. Wallace VPOTUS 1941 – 1945