Pattison's Perspectives, Waking the Proles

10 Things You Should Know About George H.W. Bush (But You Probably Don’t).

The great American memory hole has a way of swallowing up inconvenient facts like Hungry, Hungry Hippos swallow little white marbles.

But thankfully, not everything stays hidden. Here — in order of chronology — are ten facts about George HW Bush that have been salvaged from the dank recesses of the memory hole.

1. Prescott Bush, Adolph Hitler, and the Failed Coup D’état (1933 — 1942)

George HW Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, was one of the financial backers of the 1933 attempted coup d’état of a United States president.

The plan, known as the “Business Plot,” was a bonafide conspiracy to take down President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The plot was foiled, however, when retired USMC Major General Smedly Butler refused to go along with the plan and, instead, exposed it.

Remarkably, avoiding any repercussions for his treason, Prescott Bush continued business as usual until 1942 when some of his assets were seized under the Trading With the Enemy Act for his profiting from dealings with companies that directly funded Adolph Hitler and his war machine.


2 thoughts on “10 Things You Should Know About George H.W. Bush (But You Probably Don’t).”

  1. It is wrong to include Bush’s father in the list; he is not responsible for his father’s actions.

    People seem to have problems with college students joining secret societies, but they have no problem with people being members of Masons. That’s two “whoop-di-whoop issues.

    My only problem with the Bay of Pigs operation was that they were left hanging.

    Speculation about Bush and Kennedy is not fact, and to me it seems quit silly.

    Does the fact that an airliner had children on board when it was shot down really make a difference? NO. That is thrown in there for an emotional response. Just stick to the facts that it was shot down.

    I don’t trust LEFTIST newspapers so “Whitehouse tours” has no basis in reality.

    So most of this post is silly. The parts that are important lose credibility over the nonsense.


    1. Glenn,

      1). It is “wrong” to include his father in this list? Why? Is that some sort of Glenn Chatfield writing rule?

      If you wrote an historical essay about me you couldn’t include any info about my parents? That would be weird, especially when you consider the influence on decisions, politics, theology, and worldview a parent usually has over a child.

      I suppose we better never talk about Obama’s father (and family) and their influence on the shaping of his worldview. But I’m certain in that case you wouldn’t object. My only crime here is being consistent.

      2). What does anyone’s opinion about Masons have to do with stating that Bush was a member of Skull & Bones and the Bohemian Grove? Here is what I wrote, verbatim, and in its entirety:

      “George HW Bush became a member of the secretive Skull and Bones Society while he was attending Yale. He later joined the Bohemian Grove in 1973.”

      Was what I said not factual, or are you just looking for a fight?

      (And by the way, I am not all people. I don’t give a pass to Masonry.)

      3). But they were “left hanging” in Operation Zapata because Kennedy was opposed to the invasion (as he was Operation Northwoods) but acquiesced on the grounds that he would under no circumstances provide air support. When the Cuban citizenry didn’t rise up like the U.S. expected, and the mission was failing, Kennedy stuck to his guns and still denied air support. Right or wrong, fault him or not, this article never gave an opinion about whether the invasion was good or bad. It just showed the connections between it and Bush. That was all it did.

      The merits of the Bay of Pigs invasion (and how it contributed to that fateful day in Dallas) is another article for another time.

      4). Speculation about Kennedy and Bush are not facts . . . but facts about Kennedy and Bush are. You know, like how George de Mohrenschildt was friends with Bush (even had Bush’s phone number in his address book) and yet George de Mohrenschildt was also friends with the pasty Oswald, even introducing Lee to Mrs. Paine who guided him to the job at the TSBD the month preceding the assassination.

      And like that time George de Mohrenschildt wrote his friend, George HW Bush, asking for help to get the government men following him to stop, connecting the harassment he was receiving to the fact he had foolishly opened his mouth about Oswald.

      You know . . . facts like those.

      5). You’re going to accuse me of attempting to evoke an emotional response because I merely cited the number of children on board the plane we shot down?

      Wow. It’s a shame you jumped to that conclusion without any basis in truth (kind of like what you’ve been accusing me of this whole time).

      Fact is, an emotional slant to the article never occurred to me. I was merely stating a fact.

      Your personal judgment of my intentions aside, what I find disturbing is the fact that you show more consternation that I mentioned how many children perished on that flight, than the fact that we shot that plane down. That gives me great cause for concern as to where your heart is in this matter and makes me question the real point of your protest.

      Like your opposition against me mentioning Bush’s father in my article, methinks you’re swallowing camels while straining for gnats.

      6). Maybe in your world dismissing an uncomfortable revelation just because it comes from the “Leftist Newspapers” is a valid vetting system to prevent you from facing facts about your pet politicians, but it isn’t for me. I dislike the Left for the same reason you do, but facts are facts no matter who is reporting it.

      It’s true you have to use more heightened discernment when receiving facts from a slanted source, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Franklin Scandal ended up being a real thing.

      And I caution you to be careful with this one, Glenn. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Remember, almost everything you were told about 9/11 came from the Leftist news sources that dominate our media landscape . . . and you don’t doubt any part of *that* story.

      But alas, I am under no delusion. I know nothing I have said or can say will change your mind. After all, you already graciously informed me these facts are just “silly” and “nonsense” to you.

      But that’s how sacred cows work, don’t they?

      I rest in the assurance that those readers who care about history and truth will do their own research and come to their own conclusions based on the facts they unearth.

      Aside from that, I recognize we agree on a great many things and I appreciate that (and your zeal on various issues), but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Because when it comes to historical revisionism and defending the indefensible (on the Right or Left), I simply can’t do what’s expected of me and stay in my lane.


Share your comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s