Category Archives: Opinion

Perhaps it’s me who is confused….Russia/Communism

Directly after World War II, folks here and in Europe recognized that we had been allied with the USSR in our fight against the Nazis in Germany.

Waking to this realization, the Cold War became very real for quite a long time.  The problem was the USSR was Communist, and wanted global communism.

One Wisconsin Senator,  Joseph McCarthy in the Senate, and in the House, the HUAC, Unamerican Activities Committee, investigated, held hearings, did speeches.  The world was anti-communist, or at least the US and Western Europe were.


Then McCarthy was excoriated, the HUAC shut down, and Hollywood and the news media celebrated freedom, and free speech.  (Just not Joe McCarthy’s free speech.)

And there were no communists in government.  No boogymen to worry our silly little heads!  How evil it was to accuse folks!

Free speech prevailed!  Everyone could have whatever ideas they liked, and express them because we had a First Amendment!  The people loved it!

Then “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” occurred, and the old USSR dissolved.  Eastern Europe became free and everyone loved it!

No more fear, no more worry about that old boogyman Communism.

But since the election of Pres. Donald J. Trump, our own left, those who have drifted so far left it’s impossible to recognize the Democrat Party now, without calling it socialist, is Russia crazy!  Why?

Probably more democrats wanted Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist (think communist-lite, on the way to communist) than wanted Hillary Clinton to be president.  The Democrats WANT socialism.  They aren’t afraid of socialism becoming communism because they arrogantly think “we will do it right, where it hasn’t ever been done the right way before!”

I suspect the majority of Democrats wanted Sanders.

Yet since the election, the shrill, and constant shriek of the left over Russia! Russia! Russia!  Why?

Are they afraid Russia will turn us communist?

Are they afraid Russia will invade?  (I’m aware the whole Russia/Collusion issue was a ruse to drive the “resistance” into concerted efforts to bring down the newly elected president, but can’t figure out on the basis of what?  What’s the big Russia fear?

It can’t be the influence over our election causing all this hair pulling.  The US has interfered in more countries, and more elections than any other country, probably.

It could just be the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” we read of so often.  Yes.  Maybe so.

Antifa wants Sharia Law?

I can’t get over the news from the demonstrations over the weekend organized by ACT for America.  Breitbart is reporting that while there were demonstrations in 28 major cities across the nation calling for Congress to outlaw Sharia Law.  There were significant violent and ugly counter demonstrations, that included Antifa and many others shouting down speakers, and bullhorning the crowds calling marchers bigots, and islamophobes and hateful.  There were several violent interactions as well.

I have to wonder how people can go out and stand up for a system of law that is contrary to our Constitutional system of law.  So, innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers is not good enough?  Lying, cheating, stealing, violence of all sorts, are all unlawful here.  We have the protection of the law of THIS land.

Yet Sharia would punish women with stoning, and whips, visit female genital mutilation on young girls, throw homosexuals off buildings, toss acid in the faces of people not dressed to their strict notions, and kill apostates.  Don’t these people know that???

I can see we have many Muslims, and most are good people.  But as things stand now, they are protected by our system of laws.  As their numbers grow so do the calls for Sharia among the larger communities.  We can see how well that is working across Europe today, where whole Muslim enclaves have become no go zones, and women do not have the liberties American women have.  Here, our Muslim women have liberties and freedoms Muslim women elsewhere do not have.

Indeed, I agree that where possible, large prosperous nation should take in refugees and aid them during times when living in their own countries is terribly dangerous.  But assimilation to the laws and rights of the citizens must be respected by those refugees.  Demanding host nation to adapt to the culture of the refugees is wrong.  Assimilation in style of dress is one thing, but demanding places to wash feet, demanding special food preparation, demanding  safe spaces they don’t grant to others is wrong.

I feel that as a nation, in order to protect our own culture and laws, as well as the individual rights and freedoms of our Muslim women, asking Congress to outlaw Sharia Law in our courts, and all our states is essential for peace.

Why does Antifa want Sharia Law???  Ask yourself if Antifa is really something you would take a stand with, after this incredible eye opener into what they really want.  Seems they desire to destabilize the nation.  Not anti-fascist at all, but anti-America.  Who needs them?



DCDave analyses the Seth Rich/Vince Foster comparison

Once again, DCDave has an excellent analysis of current events as they relate to historical events.  This is a long read, for sure, but does a great job of comparing the murder of Seth Rich on the street in Washington, DC and the alleged suicide of Vince Foster in Ft. Marcy Park, in suburban Virginia long ago.  Filled with great detail, and demonstrating how the “Seventeen Techniques of Truth Suppression” are once again used to obfuscate, confuse and deceive the public.


Seth Rich Equals Vince Foster?


A PizzaGate Connection?


To tell you the truth, following the story of Seth Rich, the young staffer for the Democratic National Committee who was murdered on July 10, 2016, on a Washington, DC, street while returning home from a bar, I had not thought to compare the incident to the violent July 20, 1993, death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.  After all, Foster was a much more prominent figure and the claim in his case was that he had committed suicide.  The closest parallel that quickly came to my mind was that of Mary Caitrin “Caity” Mahoney, the young former Clinton White House intern shot to death in 1997 along with two other employees of a Starbucks in Georgetown.  That incident was also called a “botched robbery” because no money or valuables were taken.


Then out comes The Washington Post on May 17 with a long article entitled “In rumors around a DNC staffer’s death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory.” * The “theory” to which they refer is that Foster did not kill himself with a .38 caliber revolver pressed into his mouth that produced no exit wound that any witnesses saw nor any blood and gore behind his head.  Rather, irresponsible “rumormongers” actually claimed that Foster, whose time and manner of disappearance from the White House compound was never checked using surveillance camera records and who, according to the best witnesses, somehow arrived at Fort Marcy Park in Virginia without driving his own car there, was murdered.  As I read The Post article, though, I do see one very strong point of similarity in the two cases.  It is in the very energetic selling job being done by the mainstream media, and especially The Washington Post, for the botched-robbery story, similar to the equally unlikely suicide-from-depression story that they peddled with the Foster death.  So obvious and over-the-top have they been, in fact, that if I had not been suspicious of Rich’s death in the first place, I certainly would be after seeing the way The Post compares it to the Foster case.


Check out this opening paragraph:


Depressed and losing sleep after a few months in the White House, Vince Foster became convinced that the turmoil surrounding his work for President Clinton would never stop. He’d already been the subject of a scathing newspaper editorial that had raised questions about his long association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and his name kept appearing in White House controversies.


Lying for the Cover-up


How about that for a sales job, and for mind reading?  You’d never guess from this opening sally that initially Foster’s family, friends, and colleagues at the White House were unanimously clueless as to any reason he might have had for taking his own life.  Here is how Hugh Turley describes those early days in “Vince Foster’s Indignant but Curiously Unconcerned Sister”:


On the night of Vince Foster’s death, July 20, 1993, the Park Police went to the Foster home to notify the family and interview them as part of their investigation.  The police arrived at the home at the same time as Foster’s sister Sheila Anthony.


Park Police Investigator John Rolla testified to the Senate Banking Committee, “Sheila Anthony was talking with us, I spoke to her, [Investigator] Cheryl [Braun] spoke with her, she was very cordial.  I remember asking her, did you see any of this coming, and she stated no.  Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs, they were worried.”


Foster’s widow Lisa was also interviewed by Investigator Rolla. His FBI interview report states,  “[Rolla] does recall eventually conversing with Mrs. Foster specifically asking her if she had any indication that anything was wrong with her husband, with Mrs. Foster responding in the negative.”


Four days later on July 24, the family, through Sheila’s husband Beryl, was still denying Foster was depressed.   The Washington Times reported, “’Close friends told [Foster] to cool things and relax and not take things so personal,’ the [anonymous] source said, citing Mr. Foster’s ex-brother-in-law, former Rep. Beryl Anthony, as one who had talked to Mr. Foster about his depression…’There’s not a damn thing to it.  That’s a bunch of crap,’ Mr. Anthony said yesterday, slamming down the telephone at his El Dorado, Ark. home.”


The Washington Post concealed that the family told the police Foster was not depressed by falsely reporting, “Police who arrived at Foster’s house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk.  Investigators were not allowed to interview her until [July 29.]”


Walter Pincus, a Washington Post reporter, was at the small Georgetown townhouse when the police investigators interviewed the family for over an hour and were told Foster was not depressed.


Did you catch that, readers?  The Washington Post, in obvious furtherance of the cover-up of Foster’s murder, flat-out, knowingly lied, saying that the police were turned away from the Foster house.  Turley has a link to a copy of the original print version of the story; I have since located it online.  Here it is with an intriguing follow-up sentence:


Police who arrived at Foster’s house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk. Investigators were not allowed to interview her until yesterday. “That was a matter between her lawyers and the police,” [White House counselor David] Gergen said, and the White House “had no role in it.”


In “The Reign of the Lie,” which is part 6 of my “America’s Dreyfus Affair: The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster,” I reveal how my skepticism of that story yielded additional fruit:


[Park Police] spokesman, Major Robert Hines, even embellished the lie a bit for me. Explaining my interest from having gone to college with Vince, I called him and asked how it would have been possible for a private lawyer to stand in the way of police carrying out an investigation. He told me that I was right, that he couldn’t, but that the newspaper had misreported the facts. He said that the police had left the residence upon determining that the widow, Lisa, was too broken up to talk to and that they had returned the next day for an interview. That version of events, like the one told by The Post, was also made “inoperative,” to borrow a Watergate-era term, a year later by the released police report and the Senate testimony of Park Police investigators Rolla and Braun about their visit to the Foster home.


So The Post and the Park Police spokesman, it turned out, were lying about that first night at the Foster house.  They were stalling for time, it is clear, to get all their suicide-from-depression ducks in a row.  Even four days later, as Turley reports, sister Sheila’s husband wasn’t yet on board with the depression concoction, saying that it was “a bunch of crap.”  The very same edition of The Washington Times that has the Anthony quote, also had an article about depression that contained the following quote about Foster from White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers: “His family says with certainty that he’d never been treated (for depression),” as I report in part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair.”


I don’t know about you, but when I discover that someone has lied to me, I tend to lose confidence in anything that they might say.  Known liars also make very poor witnesses in a court of law.


The Post and its brothers in propaganda also consistently do violence to the truth in a host of slightly subtler ways.  A collection of them are enumerated in my “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.”   “Boldly and brazenly lie” doesn’t come up until #15.   In the very title of the Post article, written by Avi Selk, a man who would have been around six years old when Foster died, we see the use of technique number three, “Characterize the charges as rumors.”


One can be caught out in a lie, so the deceivers in the press would rather not resort to that crude method of deceit.  Of course, to suggest that the only thing that critics have against the press-peddled story, official or otherwise, is based upon nothing more substantial than some vague “rumors” amounts to a lie in itself, but it leaves some room for quibbling, which a bald-faced lie does not.  One can read everything that I have written challenging the absurd suicide-from-depression story and nowhere will he find me passing on anything as unsubstantial as a rumor.  The case for the murder of Vince Foster, I can assure you, rests upon very solid evidence.


Foster’s Closest Friends Puzzled by “Suicide”


Now let’s pick up young Selk’s narrative in The Post:


“In Washington you are assumed to have done something wrong even if you have not,” he told a friend in 1993, a few weeks before the deputy counsel left his office midday, went to a park and shot himself.

“He thought the matter would never end,” the friend later explained to federal investigators looking in to Foster’s death.

And it never did.

To find out who that “friend” was you have to click on the link, which leads you to a heavy-duty propaganda article by The Post’s David Von Drehle and Howard Schneider eagerly and uncritically accepting the poorly substantiated suicide conclusions of special prosecutor Robert Fiske in 1994.  It turns out that the friend was assistant attorney general Webster Hubbell, who was also Foster’s partner along with Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock.


This is hardly a disinterested witness whose word one should take implicitly, especially when he gives it after enough time has passed for him to know what the official story has come to be.  What Selk does not tell you is what we learned from Foster’s mentor at the Rose Law Firm associate, Phillip Carroll, as reported byEsquire magazine in November 1963: “Webb called me at midnight the night it happened.  He said, ‘Don’t believe a word you hear.  It was not suicide.  It couldn’t have been.”


Hillary Clinton echoed Hubbell when she said, “Of a thousand people who might commit suicide, I would never pick Vince.”  When she got the news of Foster’s death she was in Little Rock meeting with friend James “Skip” Rutherford.  This is from the FBI interview of Rutherford:


RUTHERFORD had lunch at HILLARY CLINTON’s mother’s residence.  HILLARY CLINTON was in complete disbelief and shock at the thought of FOSTER committing suicide.  HILLARY CLINTON told RUTHERFORD that she could think of no indication or reason for the suicide.  HILLARY CLINTON and RUTHERFORD were trying to determine a motive for FOSTER’s suicide.


Here we resume the Selk narrative exactly where we left off:


Not after the investigation concluded beyond any doubt that Foster killed himself [sic. It’s Selk’s incomplete sentence.]. Not decades later — after multiple inquiries by police, FBI agents, Republicans, Democrats and two special prosecutors had all debunked the still-persistent falsehood that the Clintons had Foster killed to protect themselves from what he knew.


Now just think about it.  These strong words of assurance that everything was on the up-and-up in the Foster case come from a news organ that went so far as to lie in service of the suicide-from-depression story.  Consider as well that The Post accepted the Park Police’s suicide conclusion announced on August 10, 1993, even when the cops withheld all the evidence that they had collected that might have supported their conclusions.  The only reporter who objected when Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern said they would have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get it was Sarah McClendon of the independent McClendon News Service.  In fact, the mainstream press did not even report that no supporting documentation would be forthcoming.  As late in the game as August 1, after the depression narrative had started to crystalize, Von Drehle, the lead writer of that Fiske-Report endorsement mentioned above, told us that the Edwin Arlington Robinson poem, Richard Cory, about a man who committed suicide for no apparent reason, was a sufficient explanation for him for how Foster died, strongly suggesting that it should be sufficient explanation for the public as well.


How Dare You?


Reflecting upon this truly sorry performance by our Fourth Estate, I began “The Press and the Death of Vincent Foster” this way:


The most basic charge to be made against the American press in the coverage of the death of Vincent Foster is that it has not behaved as we should expect a free and independent and minimally competent press to behave. It has not demonstrated the curiosity or the natural suspicion of even the average man on the street nor has it shown any resourcefulness at all in putting known facts together and making plausible inferences. Lacking the time or the means to gather the information for himself, the citizen is dependent upon the press to gather the information for him. This the press has simply not done. It has done virtually no independent investigation such as interviewing witnesses nor has it shown a fraction of the diligence of some few private citizens who have taken the time to look into the official record and report upon what they find. At best it has merely been a conduit for the executive branch’s official announcements and conclusions; at worst it as been a cheerleader for and an embellisher of those conclusions.


When the information imparted by the executive branch has had inconsistencies and anomalies, it has made no effort to resolve them, or even to point them out. When witnesses have testified before Congress it has virtually ignored the proceedings, and it even has failed to do substantive reporting on such events as the press conference by the Justice Department, the FBI, and the United States Park Police on August 10, 1993, when the first official conclusion of suicide was announced or of the inclusion of the dissident witness’s submission with the report of the Independent Counsel on Vincent Foster’s death. In a word, America’s press has not acted in this matter as though it felt any obligation at all to be of service to the public. Rather, it has acted little differently, on its face, from what one would expect if it were the official public relations department of the executive wing of the federal government.


Calling skeptics “rumormongers” is hardly the only truth suppression technique that The Post has recycled in the Seth Rich case.  Check out this passage from the Selk article:

As with Foster, local authorities have tried to dispel rumors that politics played a role in Rich’s death. In this case, D.C. police believe he died in a random robbery attempt.

Relatives have also begged rumormongers to lay off. On Tuesday, a family spokesman decried a Fox News report suggesting Rich was involved in leaking Democratic Party documents before his death.

But Foster’s family had tried that, too — both men became conspiracy victims anyway. The Fox News story continues to collect comments like “Seth Rich has joined Vince Foster in the pile of bodies that follow Hillary Clinton around.”

This is #2 in the techniques, “Wax indignant.  This is also known as the  ‘How dare you?’ gambit.”   The indignation is expressed in this instance, as in the Foster case, by invoking the family of the victim.  At this point we should note that when the family of a victim joins the “conspiracy theorists” in challenging the official story, as in the cases of, say, Martin Luther King, Jr., Kenneth Trentadue, or Tommy Burkett, The Post falls back on #1 and dummies up, as though the victim had no family with a strong opinion.


Clicking on that “family spokesman” link in Selk’s article leads eventually to another strong parallel to Foster.  It takes some reading, but eventually we get down to the name of the spokesman, one Brad Bauman.  What The Post does not tell us is that Bauman is a regular Democratic Party publicist.  That is to say, he is a flack for a prime suspect in the hit.  Bauman may be compared with the “Foster family lawyer,” James Hamilton.  Take a look at this excerpt from my letter to Robert Anderson, the producer of the infamous 60 Minutes episode on Foster featuring reporter Christopher Ruddy, in which I take Anderson to task for using Hamilton as his authority on Foster’s presumed “depression”:


Unmentioned is the fact that Hamilton was also an important member of the Clinton political transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case. His word, which is not only tainted, but is in this case obvious nonsense if you just think about it a little, is simply taken as final.


The criminal lawyer Hamilton is also cited by Mike Wallace as his authority that Foster was depressed, but when interviewed on screen Hamilton hardly corroborates the characterization, saying only that he “had been told” that Foster had been experiencing bouts of anxiety, or something to that effect. Was there no doctor in the house? Were you unable to interview Dr. Larry Watkins of Little Rock, Arkansas, the man who Fiske tells us prescribed an anti-depressant to Foster after talking to him on the phone, or are you as lacking in confidence in him as you are [autopsy doctor] Dr. [James] Beyer?


In that episode, by the way, Wallace showed that The Washington Post has nothing on CBS when it comes to #15 in the techniques, boldly and brazenly lying.  At one point, he looked squarely into the camera and in his authoritative baritone stated, “The forensic evidence shows that the fatal bullet had been fired into Foster’s mouth from the gun found in Foster’s hand and that Foster’s thumb had pulled the trigger.”


He had to have known that there is not a word of truth in that statement.  There was no way to match the bullet with the gun when the bullet was never recovered.  Furthermore, Foster’s fingerprints were not on the gun and the body scene, as described by numerous witnesses, was inconsistent with the scenario that Wallace paints.


Turning to the Post article to which Selk links, we find Bauman playing the “how dare you” card with even greater vigor than we have seen in the Foster case, “This is devastating to the family,” Bauman said. “They have confidence in the police investigation and believe that every single one of these fake news stories actually harms the ability of the police department to get to the bottom of what actually happened.”


Before they get too confident in the DC police, perhaps the Rich family should get in touch with the family of Chandra Levy.


Who Did it and Why?


Later in his piece Selk, at the same time, employs #12 in the techniques, “Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely,” and inadvertently points out a major difference between the Foster and Rich cases:

But why even have Foster killed? He was just a deputy counsel — and the early Clinton scandals for which he’d blamed himself did not amount to much.

For this problem, the theorists had baseless rumors that Foster and Hillary Clinton, his former partner at an Arkansas law firm, had been having an affair. Or alternatively, that the Clintons’ longtime friend was simply privy to too many of their secrets.

It is certainly not necessary to know who killed Foster and why to see from the evidence that he was murdered.  What the motive might have been for Foster’s killing has been a puzzle from the beginning.  One probably needs greater insight into the sordid affairs of the Deep State than we currently have to get completely to the bottom of it.  Lacking the law enforcement powers that the state has, and chooses not to use, regular citizens can hardly be expected to do it.  I cover various conjectures and take a stab at the latest possibility with my December 2016 article, “Was Vince Foster’s Murder PizzaGate Related?


In Rich’s case, by contrast, you can start with the motive, which almost screams out at you.  He is strongly suspected of being the source of the leaks of the DNC emails to Wikileaks that supposedly did so much damage to the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Wikileaks has even published an email from campaign manager John Podesta that says, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.”  That might explain why nothing was taken from Rich in the “botched robbery.”  If you make the murder look too much like it was simply the byproduct of a garden-variety street crime, the intended message would not be sent.  That might explain as well why no money was taken from the Starbucks cash registers in the Caity Mahoney killing.


Oh, but wait a minute! Those leaked emails from John Podesta are what started all the suspicions about a high-level pedophilia ring, PizzaGate for short.  We reveal in our article speculating on the motive for Foster’s murder that for some reason the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit was involved in the Foster death investigation.  Now that’s something that could get a person killed.  Perhaps there is a real connection between the two deaths, not just the phony or superficial ones that The Post would point to in order to mislead us.


No. 7: Invoke Authority


In Part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” in the section called “The Search for a General Mercier,” I speculate that the whole purpose of the appointment of a special prosecutor was to get a central authority figure, like General Auguste Mercier in France’s railroading of Captain Alfred Dreyfus for spying, to put his seal of approval on the cover-up.  My big cause for suspicion is that the ostensible precipitator of the appointment of Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske was an article in The Washington Times.  That article, by Jerry Seper in December of 1993, cited anonymous Park Police sources reporting that Whitewater Development Corporation documents were removed by White House officials from his office on the night of Foster’s death.  The link between the two scandals provided the excuse for a special prosecutor to investigate all of them.  Since at the time of Foster’s death the Whitewater mess was still far below the public radar, I surmised that it would have been highly unlikely that any Park Police investigator would have any idea what a Whitewater document was.  Dan E. Moldea later confirmed that suspicion in his book A Washington Tragedy, How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm.  He interviewed all the Park Police investigators, and they told him that they could not have been the source for Seper’s article precisely because they knew nothing about Whitewater.


As we have seen, Robert Fiske with his weak little “investigation” was a good enough authority figure for The Post, but Attorney General Janet Reno had appointed him.  When the Congress renewed the Ethics in Government Act, a three-judge panel appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed, in turn, Judge Kenneth Starr to take over Fiske’s investigative responsibilities.  He became the key authority figure for the prevailing molders of public opinion to rally around.  The following five short paragraphs encapsulate The Post’s latest rallying, as manifested in the Selk article:

In 1997, independent counsel Ken Starr concluded the last of them — after probes by the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Government Operations, a Senate committee and previous independent counsel all backed up the police conclusions.

Starr was no Clinton ally. He would go on to expose the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and to this day accuses the administration of many misdeeds.

But after a three-year forensic investigation that looked into nearly every conspiracy theory around Foster, Starr concluded the man simply killed himself.

No matter. Weeks after the report came out, a book called “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster” hit the shelves and rekindled every theory.

Written by a reporter who is now CEO of Newsmax, the book poked new holes in the police investigations, compiling examples of sloppiness and the accounts of a dissenting investigator to suggest “something dastardly happened,” as a New York Times book review put it.

Let us address each paragraph in turn.


The ranking Republican on the House committee that Selk speaks of was William Clinger.  What Selk calls a “probe” was simply Clinger’s eight-page endorsementof Fiske’s conclusions. ** The Senate committee mentioned was not commissioned to determine the cause of Foster’s death.  Its stated purpose was only to look into the behavior of White House officials in the wake of the death, particularly the handling of those documents in Foster’s office.


Kenneth Starr had been solicitor general in the justice department of President George H. W. Bush.  In its policies, the Bill Clinton administration might as well have been a continuation of the Bush administration.  In recent years, the two former presidents have shown themselves to be very close.  The Monica Lewinsky episode was a prime example of #13 in the techniques of truth suppression, Starr drew attention away from the Foster investigation while he dragged his feet and at the same time created the impression that he was really out to get the Clintons, when, in fact, they were all on the same team.  President George W. Bush rewarded two of Starr’s assistants, Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates, by making them federal judges.  Most recently, Starr was forced to resign in disgrace as president of Baylor University for the role he played in covering up a major sex scandal there involving the football team.


What Selk calls a “three-year forensic investigation” might better be called the result of three years of delay.  One might well ask what took so long.  The really important thing in that sentence is the link to The Post’s reproduction of Starr’s report.  Please notice this sentence in bold letters in the introduction: “This file does not contain the report’s footnotes or appendix.”  For a number of years that statement was not there and The Post, with its usual level of dishonesty when it comes to the Foster case, left the impression that what you were reading was the entire report.  Why leave off the footnotes and appendix, one might ask.  The footnotes often lead to reports by hired “experts” that are not available to the public.  The appendix contains the letter of John Clarke, the lawyer for Patrick Knowlton, the dissident witness in the case.  That letter was ordered to be included with Starr’s report over Starr’s strenuous written objections, because, as Judge John D. Butznerput it, “I suspect that if we deny [Knowlton’s] motion we will be charged as conspirators in the cover-up.”  The 20-page letter completely destroys Starr’s conclusion of suicide.  The car that Knowlton saw in the parking lot at Fort Marcy Park when Foster lay dead at the back of the park was not Foster’s, even though the FBI changed Knowlton’s testimony to say that it was.  To this day neither The Post nor anyone anywhere in the supposedly free American press has told us even about the existence of that Clarke letter, much less what is in it.  In part 3 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” I called it “The Great Suppression of ’97.”  Sadly, that bit of news suppression, a shining example of #1 in the truth suppression techniques, continues. (For the record, both Knowlton and I, as lifelong Democrats, voted for Bill Clinton for president in 1992.  We are not right-wing zealots.)


Then Selk tells us about Christopher Ruddy’s book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, that he says was published in the wake of the Starr Report.  Actually, the book came out on October 1 and the Report was published on October 10, 1997.  That was part of the master cover-up plan, as we can now see clearly in retrospect. The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, published Ruddy’s book and The New York Times gave it publicity by reviewing it.  Simon and Schuster had also published the heavily publicized cover-up book, Blood Sport, by James Stewart. The use of Ruddy, writing first for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post and then for Richard Mellon Scaife’s minor newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, is a shining example of #16 of the techniques, “Have your own stooges ‘expose’ scandals and champion popular causes.”   As I show in “Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle,” one can hardly find a better example of a Deep State stooge than Christopher Ruddy.


Curiously, Selk does not see fit to give us Ruddy’s name.  Rather, he detours us through a 2015 Washington Post article entitled “Conservative Christopher Ruddy is now in full-throated defense of Hillary?” that is behind the link for “now CEO of Newsmax.”  At this point The Post is being too cute by half, because they give away the game that Ruddy was really nothing but a false critic and fraud all along, something that serious students of the Foster case had known for quite a long time.


Another name that Selk conspicuously does not give us is that of Starr’s “dissenting investigator” described in Ruddy’s book.  For that, we have to go to the link for the New York Times review of Ruddy’s book to discover that his name is Miguel Rodriguez.  It’s interesting that the Times should spell the first name correctly, because Rodriquez was hardly a public figure and Ruddy spells his name “Miquel” in his book.  Ruddy also made it a point to tell me, and others interested in the case, that that was how it was spelled.  That’s why you will see it that way in my “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, and in the work of other Foster case investigators like lawyer Allan Favish and the late Accuracy in Media head Reed Irvine.  I only learned the correct spelling when we found Rodriguez’s resignation letter in the national archives and published it in 2009.  Following the “dummy up” technique #1, no one in the press—certainly not The Washington Post—has made any mention of that resignation letter.  Neither has anyone in the mainstream media touched the dissenting memorandum that Rodriguez wrote for the record and we published in 2013 or the recorded telephone recordings between Rodriguez and Irvine in which Rodriquez spoke, among a lot of other revealing things, of the numerous conversations he had had with reporters in a futile effort to get the truth out.  Finally, before we leave the subject of that New York Times review of Ruddy’s book, which I discovered for the first time from reading the Selk article, I must say, in all modesty, that one would be much better served by reading my review.  I also sent it to, and it used to be touted there, based upon other readers’ approval, as the leading critical review of the book.  Now, though, Amazon has made it almost impossible to find, although it is still there.  Someone must have given Amazon owner and now Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos a heads-up.


So The Post and others in the mainstream media have done us a big favor—albeit inadvertently—by drawing parallels between the shooting deaths of Seth Rich and Vince Foster.  If folks weren’t suspicious before, they surely should be now.


* On May 22, The Post changed the title to “In the debunked story on a DNC staffer’s death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory.”  I am unaware of any actual debunking that has been done.  The Post, it would appear, has decided in this instance to trade in #3 for #15 in the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.”


** The Clinger Report, including the one-page cover, is on the web site as exhibit #168 on pp. 593-601 of the 630 pages of official government document exhibits that support the court document and book, Failure of the Public Trust.  A link to the exhibits is found at the bottom of the homepage.


David Martin

May 25, 2017






Home Page  Column  Column 5 Archive    Contact





Just My Own Take on Pres. Trump’s Syria Attack

I get it.  I get it that he was affected by gas attack that killed babies.  I get it that Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was badly affected by the poor dead babies.  I get it that most mothers the world over were incensed, and their hearts bled over the devastating videos of the horror of the results of a gas attack on Syrian children.

I get it that Assad reportedly used chemical weapons on his own people back some time ago.  (Although there are reports that dispute this claim.)

My heart bleeds over dead babies as well.

But the issue at hand is not just dead babies. It’s the speed with which this whole thing went down.  Evidence that Assad did order such an attack is absent.  Motive for such an attack is absent.  The President had come around to agreeing that it wasn’t necessary to eliminate Assad in order to work with Russia to fight ISIS.  Things were looking up for Assad and his government.  He’d been winning.  It makes no sense to risk that for a target that was not in any way strategic, or important.  The old question, cui bono, who benefits is such an obvious one here.

The Russians in their denial of Assad’s guilt over this gas attack make sense.  Videos to tear the heart showing up at just this time so quickly just seem fishy.  The doctor involved in these videos was on trial for aiding terrorists in the UK and his medical license lifted.  Of course, it was an enclave of rebels that was bombed.  The only other evidence I’ve seen is classic satellite pictures claiming to show a single fixed wing aircraft from the air field President Trump bombed.

Who can really say the chemical weapons were on that airplane?  Definitively?  It was a rebel stronghold, and the rebels were just as likely to have a stockpile of their own homemade sarin gas right there.  Bombs hitting it would produce the same result.  Since the rebels (too many different groups) have been accused in the past of faking gas attacks on themselves to gain political advantage, why not consider that possibility?

I’m not opposed to President Trump righteously responding to such an attack, although I do not approve of attacking a sovereign country that poses no risk or threat to us, but I think he should have waited a few more days.  I know it’s impossible to trust humint from anywhere in the Middle East these days, but no real effort was made to determine which of the two sides was culpable in the deaths of these children.

Haley and Tillerson were charging Assad before the day was out and claiming the evidence was indisputable.  I’ve long history of learning how wrong and deceitful government claims and reports are and must, must question authority.  Always.  Question.  I wish the President had done so.

We’ve allied with Russia before to defeat totalitarians.  This attack drove a wedge between our two nations and we may not recover quickly.  We have a common enemy.  And it isn’t Bashar Al Assad.  He’s secular, and has historically protected minorities in his country.

Huge numbers of President Trumps voters and devoted followers are now concerned and disgusted.  He said he would not involve us in the quicksand of the Middle East.  Yet here we are.  The Globalists must be so happy.

Recalling Pallywood deceit.