C Span Feb 25 2011, "Our Goal is to Educate . . ."

Steve Scully, 7:45 am: "Our goal is to educate - - -"

see also, The Forgotten Memoirs of John Knox, secretary to McReynolds

So said Scully in response to a caller who said he hopes Washington Journal disappears because it gives a voice to ignorant people like "racist Tea Partiers."

8:48 am: caller -- complaining about Trumka, says Scully is "most liberal of all." Scully says "we have all sides on this program 7 days a week . . ." Caller's complaint is that Scully does not fairly represent Republicans.

Caller: 8:57 am: Last time prices went very high what was driving it was speculation. Same thing is happening now, it's not scarcity, it's an opportunity. We can't even see who is doing the speculating.

Guest (John Felmy, American Petroleum Institute): Yes you can see, commodities trading is heavily regulated.

9:06 Wyoming caller in praise of oil companies--all they do for the community. Felmy echoes, says must

____

I agree with the caller at 8:48, that Scully is "about the worst," but not because he's "liberal" or against Republicans; my opinion echoes that of Chris Hedges, that those terms and distinctions are meaningless.

Scully is "about the worst" because he does not even acknowledge to himself how sedulously he is defending the status quo, and protecting Israel and zionism at all costs.
Brian Lamb similarly defends Jews -- yes, Jews.
In an interview of the author of the biography of Sandy Weil, Lamb expressed disgust that WEIL was engaging in anti-anti semitic talk and behavior.

And in an interview of M Urofsky, biographer of Louis Brandeis, Lamb and Urofsky discussed Brandeis's resignation from the Supreme Court in 1939, and the letter of farewell that all of the justices save one, McReynolds signed. Lamb expressed disgust that McReynolds would refuse to sign the letter, attributing it to antisemitism but without saying the word -- Lamb did not SAY the judge was antisemitic or hated Jews, he merely implied it by his body language and tenor and context of the conversation. Urofsky, however, supplied the missing piece -- he said, "McReynolds would say, 'that Jew . . .'" referring to Brandeis.

Does the possibility exist that McReynolds had a profound ideological or moral concern that Brandeis had acted or was acting in ways detrimental to American interests, and THAT was the source of his refusal to sign the letter? ** see "Forgotten Memoir John Knox"

Lies are what the world lives on, and those who know the truth and live their lives in accord are finally, not the many but the few. ~ Joseph Campbell, "Myths to Live By"

__________
see List of US Supreme Court Justices

____________

McReynolds, James Clark

McReynolds, James Clark (mukren'uldz) [key], 1862–1946, U.S. Attorney General (1913–14) and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1914–41), b. Elkton, Ky. He received his law degree from the Univ. of Virginia in 1884. He was a professor of law at Vanderbilt when he was appointed Assistant Attorney General by Theodore Roosevelt. He served from 1903 to 1907, and later, while practicing law, he was a special assistant to the Attorney General in several antitrust cases. He continued his active antitrust work as Attorney General. Appointed by President Wilson to the Supreme Court, he opposed most expansions of the power of the federal government, firmly supporting laissez-faire economic policies. He particularly opposed the New Deal legislation, which he believed violated the Constitution. As a result, he was a key target in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's unsuccessful attempt to reconstitute the Supreme Court. Considered a difficult and rather unfriendly man, McReynolds was an anti-Semite who thoroughly disliked his fellow justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Read more: James Clark McReynolds — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0831041.html#ixzz1EzLttFUO

American President: An Online Reference Resource for U.S. Presidents
↑ Woodrow Wilson Front Page
James C. McReynolds (1913–1914): Attorney General

The son of a surgeon, James Clark McReynolds was born on February 3, 1862, in Elkton, Kentucky. He graduated from Vanderbilt University in 1882 and followed in the footsteps of the President he would serve, Woodrow Wilson, by studying law at the University of Virginia, earning his degree in 1884. McReynolds entered the political arena when he served briefly as private secretary to U.S. Senator Howell E. Jackson. He returned to his law practice in Nashville, Tennessee, before losing in a bid for Congress as a "gold" Democrat in 1896.

McReynolds taught law at Vanderbilt University from 1900 to 1903, at which time he was appointed assistant U.S. attorney general by President Theodore Roosevelt. As special counsel for the government from 1907 to 1912, McReynolds prosecuted violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act. President Woodrow Wilson named him attorney general on March 5, 1913.

When Associate Justice Horace Lurton resigned from the Supreme Court in August 1914, Wilson tapped McReynolds to take his place. McReynolds served on the high court for twenty-six years, until February 1, 1941, voting down most New Deal measures during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. He died on August 24, 1946, in Washington, D.C.

re Helen Thomas: Pavlov's Dog Didn't Bark June 7 2010

June 7 2010
Question of the morning on Wash Journ was, Should Helen Thomas be asked to resign from the White House press pool because of her response to an anonymous blogger's question about Jews in Israel.

C Span pivoted from a statement by Lani Davis that Thomas was an anti-Jewish bigot. In other words, C Span focused on whether Thomas could continue as an impartial reporter from the White House because she made a statement that was not supportive of Jews.

I think the question about Helen Thomas's capacity to report from the White House should be whether she is mindful of American interests, rather than Jewish or Israel's interests.

I further think that the Question and reaction of the blogger who asked the question is an essential part of the story. After Ms. Thomas made her first statement, that Jews should leave Palestine because they were occupying land stolen from Palestinians, the blogger said, "Whoa...." He did not anticipate that response. In other words, his was not a question to elicit an authentic opinion, it was the lab technician checking on whether Pavlov's dog was still trained. He rang the bell, Helen Thomas did not bark.

That non-bark, that failure of the 63 years of Jewish sensitivity training of the American people is the silence heard round the country.

C Span moderator was out of his depth as a journalist; his listeners and callers were far better informed than he is. For example, the Moderator tried several times to beat back the caller who stated that a member of AIPAC spies on the US. The caller said, "I read it in the Washington Post; don't you know about that?" He said, "It's Steve Weissman" [actually Keith Weissman]." Which is correct.

The Moderator terminated the call at that point.

The question is, can C Span be educated?
If not C Span, then WHO can guide the United States through an honest and vigorous discussion of the US relationship with Israel, with AIPAC, with Jews in the United States, with zionism?

To stifle that conversation is precisely the approach that will result in more, not less, harm to Jews in America. Most people will automatically point to Germany as an example of a situation where "antisemitism got out of hand and resulted in the Holocaust of 6 million Jews." That would be inaccurate. That response would be the Pavlovian response.

Hitler's first major piece of writing was an exploration of "principled antisemitism." Renan's was much the same. Why were the German people resentful of Jews? Both Renan and Hitler concluded that the old, religious issues, that "Jews killed Christ," were bogus. The complaints of the German people involved economic and financial issues, matters of Jewish dominance of German institutions and media. Hitler tried to defuse the anger of the people.

AISH, Rabbi Ken Spiro.... "Jews expect to be persecuted again."

US must do things differently. We must not allow the United States to be led by zionists down the same path that Germany was led by zionists. We must call to account Israel and the Jews in the US who have suborned the interests of the United STates in preference for the interests of Israel.

I suggest several action to take:
1. A truth and reconciliation commission.
2. Seize the assets of zionist billionaires who support activities that work against the interests of the US -- Schusterman, Adelson, Haim Saban,
3. Dismantle the US Treasury office of antiterrorism. US Treasury should be focusing on US economy, not attempting to destroy Iran's economy for the benefit of Israel.
4. Close the Holocaust Museum
5. Demand that lobbyists for Israel register as foreign agents.
6. Include Israel and Israel lobbyists in the Campaign reform rules of _____ .
7.



The question is,

Cracks revealing feet of clay June 3 2010

Psychopathic god June 3, 2010 at 10:32 am

C Span Washington Journal is my ‘beat.’
I consider C Span the ‘Colin Powell’ of cable media: people trust C Span to be impartial.
And yesterday, the tipping point was approached: a caller said,

“oil, oil, oil; that’s all you talk about. It’s very important but the flotilla is extremely important too, why don’t you talk about the flotilla? You cut off callers who say things critical of Israel.”

So today C Span Moderator Susan Swain took the bull by the horns: You, dear listeners, tell us what is most important to you.
Then Swain read the headlines of a number of national newspapers. I lost count; most of them lead with oil spill stories.
C Span Washington Journal frequently explains to its listeners that it tries to be ‘balanced’ by reading NYT AND Washington Times; that is, it thinks its covering the spectrum of print media.
But C Span does not get the larger point: ALL of the media is either bought or cowed to presenting ONLY what certain interests permit to be presented, and only in the way that those interests prefer. Nobody wants to think about it, including trustworthy C Span.

I’m still having a hard time categorizing the calls — twenty of them came in; most mentioned the oil spill as being very important; several mentioned pressing issues like immigration; pressing economic issues including employment/unemployment, finance reform. A few off-the-wall calls occupy the tails of the curve. Perhaps four or five callers mentioned Israel/Gaza and the flotilla.
Two calls regarding Israel laid bare the divide; one of those calls represented a major tipping point in US dialog about Israel. That caller said he thought the most important issue the US has to confront is the media. He said that C Span represented the best that the media spectrum has to offer, but that C Span seemed to pull its punches when the topic was Israel. He asked this question twice, and squeezed a response from Ms. Swain: “When C Span producers have their directors’ meetings, do they say, ‘Don’t talk about Israel or Jews?’ Because that what it seems like.”
(Swain replied softly and rather embarrassed, “No, of course we don’t eliminate any topic from discussion.”)
The caller spoke further (and to her credit, Swain was generous with time and did not interrupt or censure): “Many times when people say things critical of Israel, they are accused of antisemitism. Some seem antisemitic. But it is possible to talk about Israel without being antisemitic, and it’s important.”
The caller’s remarks were in the same vein of thought as one of . Stephen Walt’s three question of Peter Beinart:

Second, Beinart’s essay is primarily directed at the American Jewish community, which is understandable. Yet I’m curious as to whether he thinks this is a topic that all Americans should engage with, or whether he thinks (as some do) that it is a topic on which non-Jews should remain largely silent. My own view is that the special relationship has a profound impact on American foreign policy and therefore it is a subject that all Americans should care about very much and be able to discuss openly — without being unfairly attacked — even if they a critical of Israel’s actions and America’s unconditional support for them. No group should enjoy a privileged position in that debate. I wonder if Beinart would agree.

Some months ago, Michael Scheuer caused a mild stir when he said, on C Span Washington Journal, that Americans needed to, and deserved to, have a frank conversation about the US-Israel relationship. Scott Ritter has said the same thing on numerous occasions, including on C Span.
Starting at least three years ago, a network of some dozens of us low-life low-impact keyboard warriors have tried to raise the issue on numerous fora, perhaps with more passion than tact; we’ve been banned, censored, and vilified as vicious antisemites.

Who knows how many Palestinians, who knows how many Afghanis, who knows how many American soldiers, have died since Michael Scheuer and Scott Ritter stirred the waters.

Three days ago nine more people died– is it nine? we don’t know! Israel retains control of bodies, wounded, information, evidence, and the right to be its own judge and jury, by decree of Hillary Clinton, who is in thrall to Haim Saban who has stated that “he’s a one-issue guy and that issue is Israel,” and that he cares for the US so little that his businesses are incorporated in Cayman Islands so that he can avoid US taxes.

It’s time. NOW. Time for a vigorous all-American debate on the US-Israel relationship.
Pray that the conversation can remain a conversation and not a confrontation.