Replies

I just posted this in Festival of the last thread, so here is a repost:

grey_whiskers posted:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WOW! THANKS FOR THE LINK, GREY WHISKERS!

From the end of this lengthy article which describes the thuggery on the part of those who are held in honor, is the following excerpt. The author has mentioned the organized crime operations/ methods, and some of its characters....The Pritzkers, and other Chicago figures, the moving in of the mob to California through and gaining power through the expedient of interning the Japanese Americans in WWII along with seizing their property....The lawyer who handled all of that and sold the Japanese American assets for cheap to his crooked friends was rewarded with a Judgeship....it even touches on the JFK assassination...there is a vignette of a possible hit planned on Desi Arnaz, which was called off.... and at the end of the article, he slid over into the the story of James Garner. He does some interesting dot connecting. Fascinating.

This article is long, and I confess I’ve only skimmed most of it as I was cutting and pasting, and I plan to go back and read all of it, but this last part about James Garner got my attention:

“...During the late 1970s my favorite show on television was The Rockford Files, in which James Garner played a wise-cracking private-eye in Los Angeles, and I was quite disappointed when the series was cancelled at the end of 1979. A foreign friend of mine in college noted that Garner’s very square jaw and bold demeanor made him look remarkably like a young Ronald Reagan, who had been lifted to enormous political heights by his usefulness to Lew Wasserman, whose MCA-Universal also happened to produce Garner’s show. But just a couple of years ago I happened to discover that the backstory to those events, and how the actor’s willingness to stand up for his rights may have led him to a sharply different fate.

Garner had agreed to relatively low fees for each Rockford episode in exchange for a substantial share of the overall profits, which seemed likely to be enormous once it went into syndication. But near the end of the fifth season, he accidentally discovered that under studio accounting the extremely popular show had accrued cumulative total losses of $9.5 million, and was unlikely to ever turn much of a profit. Garner had suffered a great deal of damage during his very physically-demanding series, doing nearly all of his own stunt-work and typically involved in two fist-fights or beatings in each episode.

Soon afterward, he stopped coming to the set based on his doctor’s recommendation that he seek immediate treatment for a bleeding ulcer, although MCA accused him of malingering, and NBC soon canceled the series. Although it was extremely rare back then for actors to undertake the huge expense of pursuing litigation against a studio, Garner was wealthy enough to do so, and he decided to sue MCA for $20 million over what he claimed was its fraudulent accounting, which had deprived him of his contractual share of the profits. Such successful action by a leading television star might obviously inspire all sorts of other Hollywood individuals to demand similar changes.

One week after the last Rockford Files episode aired on NBC, Garner was driving in slow, rush-hour traffic on Coldwater Canyon Drive when his car was bumped by another vehicle. After he stopped to get insurance information, he was immediately attacked and severely beaten by the driver, who turned out to be a young former Green Beret, resulting in three days of hospitalization for 51-year-old actor. By a rather strange coincidence, the personal chauffeur of MCA Chairman Lew Wasserman happened to be present as an observer at the scene. Despite his serious injuries, Garner eventually went ahead with his lawsuit, which was finally successfully settled after eight years of litigation. But perhaps the unusual incident led many other, less well-established actors to reflect upon the sudden misfortune that might enter their lives under the wrong circumstances.

Oddly enough, the brutal public beating of one of the biggest stars on television received much less attention than one would expect, or at least I never heard of it at the time, nor during the decades that followed, only learning of it from Moldea’s book on MCA’s dark history. Moreover, the attack seems to have been almost entirely scrubbed from the Internet, with my inadequate Google skills only locating the most obscure sources, such as a PDF copy of an AP wire story in the Tuscaloosa News of Alabama, though the details are provided in Garner’s 2011 memoirs, The Garner Files.

It’s quite possible that the incident was exactly what it purported to be, the sort of random, violent assault that can happen to any of us without cause or warning, even including leading television stars locked in bitter contract disputes with a major studio having deep Syndicate roots. But I do think the story would have fit perfectly into Russo’s narrative of early Chicago days of MCA in the 1930s, when its top executives worked closely with the thugs of Al Capone.”

I have tucked this story away in my “Justice/Court system” files.

This story made me think of the recent Q drop, #3425, and the Oracle treatment of it:

3425
twitter.com/CBSNews/status
“FIND OUT THE PEOPLE THAT WENT TO THAT ISLAND.”
-POTUS
Anons know.
Q

(video of Trump/press at link)
“I was not a fan of Jeffrey Epstein”.

Confirms he “threw him out” of his club. “I threw him out”.

“Find out the people that went to the island.”
#. #. #.
The story below mentions the time Trump addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference, and mentions Epstein.

“ONE PHOTO IS THE SMOKING GUN PROVING BILL CLINTON IS GUILTY IN THIS SEX SCANDAL”

https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/featured/one-photo-is-the-smoking-gun-proving-bill-clinton-is-guilty-in-this-sex-scandal/

EXCERPT:

“...Vanity Fair exclusively reports:

After the meeting Trump called in Sam Nunberg, then a Trump Organization employee, who saw Pecker leaving Trump’s office. “Michael was sitting in there when I came in, and the issue of the National Enquirer with the pictures of Prince Andrew was on his desk,” Nunberg recalled. “He said not to tell anyone, but that Pecker had just been there and had brought the issue with him. Trump said that Pecker had told him that the pictures of Clinton that Epstein had from his island were worse.”

After this meeting, Donald Trump spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Trump hinted that Clinton’s relationship with Epstein would be a major issue in Hillary Clinton’s expected 2016 Presidential campaign.”

The following story shows how the Justice Department is working to make sure Democrats don’t get the Congressional testimony from Mueller they were pushing for.

“WILLIAM BARR DROPPED ONE MAJOR SURPRISE ON ROBERT MUELLER HE NEVER SAW COMING”

https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/featured/william-barr-dropped-one-major-surprise-on-robert-mueller-he-never-saw-coming/

Robert Mueller left Democrats across the country shocked when his Russia investigation cleared President Trump of any wrongdoing.

But as Democrats gear up to drag Mueller to Congress later this month to testify to Congress, a new development could put their plans in jeopardy.

And it’s all because William Barr dropped one major surprise on Mueller that he never saw coming.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller stunned the country when his two-year investigation ended in almost no dirt on President Donald Trump.

The Russia investigation was supposed to be the key thing to take down the President, and instead Democrats had almost nothing to show for it.

But rather than move on, Democrats in Congress decided to draw out the Mueller investigation as much as possible.

So they’re hauling back Mueller to testify to Congress this month.

The strategy Nancy Pelosi and her friends are running with is that if they can get Mueller to speak to Congress, they may be able to get something, anything, to attack the President with.

Even if it’s just a 30-second sound bite of Mueller saying something bad about the President, Democrats are hoping that they will walk away from this meeting with a new angle to hit the President on.

But they may never get the chance.

It’s all because the Justice Department is working to make sure Democrats don’t get the Congressional testimony they were pushing for.

Reuters reports, “The Justice Department is trying to prevent two former members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team from testifying behind closed doors as Mueller prepares for a public appearance before lawmakers next week, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.”
“The department said last week it opposed testimony by Aaron Zebley and James Quarles before the Democratic-led House of Representatives’ Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, a senior congressional official told the newspaper. A Justice Department official confirmed the account and had instructed the men not to appear, the paper said.”

William Barr is once again proving to be a major thorn in Nancy Pelosi’s side.

Not only has he stopped her attempts to undermine the President’s efforts to secure the border and build a wall, but he’s also beaten her on the Mueller report too.

If Barr can keep Mueller’s staff from testifying to Congress, it would be a major blow to Pelosi’s standing as Speaker of the House.

And Barr isn’t without reason to stop the testimony from happening either.

He knows this isn’t a real hearing.

This is simply an orchestrated hit job on the President.

Democrats who want to hold the hearing aren’t interested in getting to the bottom of the Russia investigation. After all, they’ve already been presented with Mueller’s findings.

Rather, they’re seeking to simply find anything to use from these meetings to attack the President with.

And Barr isn’t about to let that happen.

For all who are collecting and saving all kinds of Q info, especially that regarding directly Q topics, I ran across this long link to a VOAT DEEP dig on the Laybournes. I am only able to do drive-by posting today, and I did want to get this out there for FReeQs to examine.

The Laybournes were mentioned in Q drop #3367

SEE THE LINK TO THE VOAT DIG ON LAYBOURNES:
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3072826

“KIT LAYBOURNE, WHY IS THIS CHILDREN’S ANIMATION PRODUCER ON EPSTEIN FLIGHT MANIFEST?”
[I have saved the article as PDF export into my ALL THINGS CALIF file]

Here is a little bit of stuff just to get you going from the VOAT link:

Creepy line from Kit Laybourne
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-08/magazine/tm-41780_1_disney-channel/6 (http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-08/magazine/tm- 41780_1_disney-channel/6)
This is just what I remember, I’ll check some of my stuff and see if I found anything else.
Edit: I believe that “safe spaces” were first pushed by nickelodeon, along with other progressive-facist concepts

https://www.mediavillage.com/article/spongebob-family-guy-pretty-little-liars-explain-the-hooked-up-generation/print/ (https://www.mediavillage.com/article/spongebob-family-guy-pretty-little-liars-explain-the-hooked-up-generation/print/)

A sense of community is still a part of their life. At their vacation house 45 minutes outside Telluride, the Laybournes built two oversized bunk beds in the living room, with curtains that can be drawn for privacy. (Their own bed is in another room, on rollers, railroad-style, so that they can sleep under the stars on the balcony at the end of the tracks.) Kit says weekend guests love the bunk beds: “There is something lewd about adults sleeping together in one room.”

AND

Geraldine Laybourne, the educator who led Nickelodeon during its formative years, shares the story of her first visit to the set of Linda Ellerbee’s groundbreaking Nickelodeon news program. “Linda had posted a sign that said ‘Question Authority.’ I told her to take it down... and replace it with a sign that said ‘Question Everything.’”
When Nickelodeon was launched in 1990, the network issued a Declaration of Kids’ Rights that, in many ways, serves as the mantra that The Hooked Up Generation grew up with and that defines how they perceive their rights and entitlements.

Nickelodeon’s Declaration of Kids’ Rights June 7, 1990 In the course of history, it has become pretty clear that all people are born with certain inalienable rights; among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But these rights haven’t always applied to kids. And that stinks! Now, 200 years after the creation of America’s Bill of Rights, this declaration proclaims to the world that you have rights too:

You have
the right to be seen, heard and respected as a citizen of the world.
the right to a world that’s peaceful and an environment that’s not spoiled.
the right to be treated with equality; regardless of race, religion, nationality, sex, personality, grades or size. the right to make mistakes without someone making you feel like a jerkhead.
the right to be protected from harm, injustice and hatred.
the right to an education that prepares you to run the world when it’s your turn.
the right to your opinions and feelings, even if others don’t agree with them.
So there!
[I had to edit the above “rights” because I could not cut and paste in the format they had written]

“When we first came up with the mission to connect with kids and connect kids with each other through the world of entertainment, we were less a cable TV network and more a philosophy,” Gerry Laybourne explains. “We had a wide range of TV including Linda’s news programs that covered topics like AIDS and the Gulf War, game shows like Double Dare, cartoons like Doug and Rugrats, live action shows like Clarissa and All That. We encouraged kids to try new things and supported them when they didn’t succeed.”

AND

BIG FIND
Kit Laybourne’s sister is married to Bill & Hillary Clinton’s lawyer..... (Rhode Scholar, Yale, Oxford,....you know the type)
http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83008557/1968-04-13/ed-1/seq-7.pdf (http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83008557/1968- 04-13/ed-1/seq-7.pdf)
Anne Laybourne - David Kendall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Kendall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Kendall) P.S. According to the announcement, Kendall was a stockbroker with David a NOYES & CO

AND

More Digs on the Laybournes:
A. KIT LAYBOURNE’S FATHER, LAWRENCE LAYBOURNE’S SMITHSONIAN OBITUARY:

https://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/torch/Torch%201976/SIA_000371_1976_03.pdf (https://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/torch/Torch%201976/SIA_000371_1976_03.pdf)

“At the Smithsonian, Mr. Laybourne the merger of the Office of Development and the National Associates and initiated the regional program in which Smithsonian activities have been shared with Associates around the country.”

B. LARRY LAYBOURNE, SQUASHING A STORY AT THE BEHEST OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. OFFICIALLY OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD STARTED IN THE 50’S, BUT IN 46 AND 48 LAYBOURNE WAS RUNNING HIS STORIES BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE....AND CENSORING HIS REPORTING.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cpmss/article/viewFile/36327/29278 (https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cpmss/article/viewFile/36327/29278)

“Advertising for Prestige”: Publicity in Canada-United States Arctic Defence Cooperation

The joint Canadian-US Military Cooperation Committee was busy drawing up a grandiose plan for a continental air-defence system that was never instituted and the United States had sought permission to construct a chain of weather stations across the Canadian Arctic. The stations would be operated by the United States Weather Bureau, a civilian agency, but they were clearly military in intent.

This was something new for Canada. PRIOR TO 1940, THERE HAD BEEN VIRTUALLY NO CANADA-UNITED STATES DEFENCE RELATIONSHIP. American troops or installations, civil or military, on Canadian soil, or joint Canadian-American defence planning, would have been unheard of.

Canadian government’s effort to keep the details of the new Canada-United States defence partnership under cover was not helped by an incident that took place in late September 1946. In an off-the-record conversation with Time magazine correspondent Larry Laybourne during a visit to New York, Secretary of State Paul Martin said that the Canadian government faced important decisions in the field of joint defence and that he was “staggered by the expense of the installations which Canada would have to finance.” Martin was undoubtedly referring to the MCC’s soon-to-be-shelved air defence plans.

Laybourne then contacted American government officials to try to pry more information out of them but was told that any publicity regarding Canada-United States defence activities at that point would embarrass US Secretary of State James Byrnes, then attending the Paris Peace Conference. Laybourne chose to sit on the story but Time’s representative in Ottawa tried to get details about Arctic defence installations from the United States embassy there. At the same time Maclean’s reporter Blair Fraser and the Financial Post’s Wilson were also poking around. OTTAWA ASKED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO HELP AND LAYBOURNE WAS CONTACTED A SECOND TIME AND TOLD TO BACK OFF BUT NOT BEFORE THE CANADIANS WERE REMINDED “WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUTTING TIME MAGAZINE ON THE TRAIL LAY.” THE AMERICANS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SO COMPLIANT IF THEY WERE NOT “ALIVE TO THE DANGER OF PREJUDICING CANADIAN GOVERNMENT DECISIONS BY UNFORTUNATE PUBLICITY.”

[texokie note: It should be recalled that the Smithsonian, where Lawrence Laybourne worked, is a long-known derpetorium.]

Part A

Please Quote Post to Which You Are Replying

Part B

Please Use Graphic Content Warnings

Part C

All 8ch links and link variations are prohibited