RuggedShark

A weak attempt at bolstering FDR and Eisenhower

Revisado: 05-28-16

What would have made Killing Patton better?

Somehow, like a modern Clousseau, O’Reilly dodges all the facts and evidence and comes to the same tired conclusions as if no new information were available since 1945. Like Omar Bradley, O’Reilly ignores all the incoming reports of a huge offensive that has been building up. And like Bradley, O’Reilly buries his head deep in myth and legend in order to make himself comfortable and to lull the reader/soldier into a very false sense of security. He does this first by dodging the major questions which must have cut at General Patton’s sensibilities and the most sophomoric military/history student should ask: First, what was the purpose of the bloody Italian campaign if the Allies were not going to press the attack from the soft underbelly? O’Reilly only mentions it in passing. Second, why was Patton continually cut off from the fuel and ammunition, given to Montgomery when Montgomery could not deliver the results? The same tired excuse of politics with the British Crown is given. Third, why wasn’t the German army cut-off at the Battle of Bulge so the offensive into Germany could get rolling immediately? He doesn’t address this basic tactical and overwhelming strategic blunder. Why was the American Army turned south to Bavaria instead of fighting east - like Patton and any private could see was where the fight was to be? O’Reilly ignores these questions by remembering the outstanding performances by so many American soldiers on a tactical level. Why did FDR demand unconditional surrender? If the Western allies would have been more realistic, the entire German army would have surrendered to the U.S. forces and could have been pivoted to clean the world of that scourge, International Communism. Finally and in defiance of all the propaganda we are engulfed in - how did our victory in WWII result in the loss of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, China, Southeast Asia - all were under the Red flag? O’Reilly glosses over the tragic “mistakes” and FDR’s negotiations – posing the USSR as something of an equal player at the table, and it certainly was not. And how did this book on Patton use most of its volume to sing praises to FDR and Eisenhower - the men who thwarted Patton and lost 2/3 of the globe to the Reds?

What was most disappointing about Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard ’s story?

O’Reilly’s book is nothing more than propaganda to prop-up the FDR myth that is fast coming unraveled. First, O’Reilly misses all the new-found evidence regarding FDR’s complicity in Pearl Harbor. Not all of the evidence is new-found, however, FDR made some of it “top-secret” to keep it from the American people (see James Perloff – CFR Shadows of Power - youtube lecture and book). It’s hard to believe that anyone researching FDR or WWII would not find/ask about this controversy – and it is no longer a controversy. Secondly, is O’Reilly’s head that deep in myth and legend that he does not know that the FDR Administration was overrun with Communist spies and fellow travelers? (see – Stalin’s Secret Agents by M. Stanton Evans) In fact, Harry Dexter White, who O’Reilly pictures at FDR’s 4th inauguration speech, designed the international banking system working with John Maynard Keynes (the British Fabian Socialist and pedophile). White was one of the Soviet’s top Agents of Influence. White had even been given the assignment to get the U.S. and Japan into a war - so that Japan would not attack the Soviets! (see Operation Snow by John Koster). Did O’Reilly miss the abuses of Lend-Lease and how the U.S. Taxpayer built the Soviet Union? (see – Russia’s Lifesaver by Albert Weeks and From Major Jordan’s Diaries by George Racey Jordan – also on youtube) Plates to print cash, factories and manufacturing techniques - even how the plans and materiel for the atomic bomb and the full-contents of the U.S. Patent office were transferred to the Soviets under Harry Hopkins, another Soviet Agent of Influence - did he miss all that? Hasn’t O’Reilly heard of the Venona Documents? Did O’Reilly miss that the Roosevelt’s were a northeast banking and sugar plantation family and the Delano’s drug traffickers? The evidence is one of treason at the highest levels – and you don’t have to dig deep to find it. Not only a treasonous execution of the war, but a treasonous entry into it with British intrigue, like WWI (see The Lusitania by Colin Simpson). There is little doubt that FDR himself was part of the Internationalist Bankers who have so long profited exponentially on wars and conflict (see FDR and Wall Street and The Federal Reserve Conspiracy by Antony Sutton/see The Money Masters by Bill Still on youtube). The strong implication of any moderate research is that Patton had been killed because Patton vowed to investigate and expose the treason after the war. Like James Forrestal, Patton had to be silenced. He had the stature, dignity and patriotism and would have exposed that the FDR administration was Communist to the core (see The Revolution Was and Rise of Empire by Garet Garrett, book and youtube.) This was the reason why the U.S. strategy was to STALL the Western offensive, over and over and over again. Eastern Europe and much of German technology was “given” to Stalin through this stalling strategy. Wild Bill Donovan, the creator of the CIA (under FDR) is a likely a suspect in Patton’s murder. And it is horrible to think that the CIA is the offspring, if not captive to, the NKVD and British intelligence – what a genetic cesspool. Roosevelt, handed Donovan $21 million without any oversight – this should raise some alarms as well. But by missing all the clues of the treason in high places, O’Reilly proposes a lone gunman theory or a potential Soviet connection, closing the readers mind to the truth. By not asking the most basic strategic questions and following old myths and legends – O’Reilly has little more to offer than the movie, “Patton.” Had he done some research, he would have realized that the “myths and legends” have no legs in light of what is now known. I cannot help to think that O’Reilly, part of the “faux right,” is lulling the troops to sleep as Omar Bradley did before the German offensive in the Arden. By not asking the questions or incorporating the facts, O’Reilly pumps us up with patriotism to march into darkness and deception. If he is “watching out for the folks,” the folks better watch out. Save yourself the time, watch a “Hogan’s Heros” if you want propaganda.

How did the narrator detract from the book?

O'Reilly narrated the book and he is articulate with his "looking out for the folks" "faux right" "regular 'Harvard' guy" vernacular.

If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from Killing Patton?

O'Reilly was sparse on research and long on the same old myths and legends about FDR and Eisenhower. Because he closes the readers mind to the likelihood of an FDR or Eisenhower assassination, he has no choice but to finger the Russians.

Any additional comments?

If O'Reilly could follow the evidence and not bring pre-conceived ideas, myths and legends to bear - whether purposely or subconsciously, and complete his research with material that has come to light since 1945 there are without a doubt smoking guns here which "popular history" has been trained to overlook.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Essential to All Good Government

Revisado: 05-12-16

If you could sum up The Theme Is Freedom in three words, what would they be?

Evans provides an air tight case, what we think we know about our founding - is purely propaganda and based on myth and legend. The truth about the founding is noble and biblical - not an enlightenment sewer like the French or the Russian Revolution's, Mao's China or the NWO.

What does Scott Slocum bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

His rendering is good in its inflection and rhythm. His voice is ill matched to the subject matter. His throaty and smoky voice does not match the intellectual foundation of the work. Overall, it was distracting at first, but is still very much worth listening to.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

No.

Any additional comments?

I highly recommend this book for anyone seeking truth about the Founders and the founding of our Constitutional Republic. It may not be too late?

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona