• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. That is a hard one for me to answer because the answer depends upon several factors. The first thing I look for is whether or not an author has any significant record of research into FBI history--particularly if they discovered new previously unknown information? (1) Suppose, for example, that you check all the usual library databases and you discover that a specific author has written ONE book about the FBI during his career but he has never had any articles about the FBI published in peer-reviewed academic journals. In other words, his FBI-interest was very limited. Example: New York Times journalist (and Pulitzer Prize winner) Tim Weiner wrote a very well-received book published in 2012 about the FBI ["Enemies: A History of the FBI"] but that was his only publication about the FBI. (2) By contrast, consider historian Dr. Athan Theoharis. He has spent his entire career studying our intelligence agencies. He has written at least 10 books about FBI history and he has published many articles in both popular and academic journals. The Church Committee hired Theoharis during its investigation into our intelligence agencies. Theoharis examined Presidential records about the FBI's interactions with the White House at the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Presidential libraries. Theoharis also was given a security clearance in order to examine some FBI records at FBI headquarters. Theoharis has served as the faculty adviser to other historians who specialized in FBI history at Marquette University. For example: his graduate students included two PhD students (Kenneth O'Reilly who wrote "The FBI and HUAC" and Christopher Gerard who wrote "The FBI and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee"). Several of his Master's students also studied the FBI with him while obtaining their PhD at another university -- such as: David Williams (University of New Hampshire) studied the early history of the FBI; Francis MacDonnell (Harvard University) studied the FBI and the Fifth Column; Douglas M. Charles (University of Edinburgh) studied the FBI and the anti-interventionist movement of 1939–45, and the FBI's Obscene File. Charles R. Gallagher, (Boston College) states that Theoharis helped him develop his narrative about the FBI and Vatican diplomatic relations. (3) Sometimes, the most interesting and useful writing about FBI history is not even in published books but, rather, in Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. You can see many of those titles (some of which did become books) in section 101 of my Bibliography of Academic Theses and Dissertations here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/biblio-2
  3. Today
  4. 1. First of all, not all FBI informants were "paid". I should have pointed that out in my original message because Jack Levine had no way of even knowing what percentage of FBI informants inside the CPUSA were either paid for services or expenses OR whether or not the FBI even paid their CPUSA dues. 2. There were no FBI informants inside the JBS (paid or otherwise). There were very strict guidelines regarding IF and when an informant would be authorized -- and then whether or not such individuals might be paid (and even that raises other questions such as was a field office SAC asking for recurring payment or a one-time payment). 3. If you want to review the general guidelines for payments to informants, check out Section 137 of the FBI's Manual which I recently posted online in my Internet Archive collection. https://archive.org/stream/FBIMIOGSec137Informants_201706/FBI MIOG- Sec 137- Informants#page/n39/mode/2up There were differences in the 1960's (compared to the current guidelines which is what I uploaded onto Internet Archive) but the general principles remain the same. The key questions here are: (1) what information did the FBI allegedly want about a person or organization which it could NOT obtain without paying an informant for it? and (2) Did the FBI have means to obtain that same information without even using an informant -- including through mail covers, trash covers, electronic surveillance, assistance from "established sources" or other methods --even including surreptitious entry? 4. Off the top of my head, I don't recall if the FBI had any "paid informants" inside the Minutemen. They did have access to MM membership lists from at least 3 different sources but I don't recall seeing any documents requesting any sort of payments to them. 5. With respect to white supremacist groups, the FBI did pay informants for their services and for expenses. For example: the most violent Klan in our nation's history (White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi) was infiltrated by Rev. Delmar Dennis and he was paid. I uploaded some relevant documents about his informant status here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis See the 5th page for the field office SAC request to HQ for authorization to pay Dennis $75 week for services and $25 week for expenses. Generally speaking -- the FBI was only interested in paying IF and WHEN there was some clear or suspected violation of federal law falling under its jurisdiction -- and, consequently, the FBI wanted records which could be used in court proceedings to convict people of actual crimes. That did NOT apply to the JBS or to most "right wing extremist" organizations--even though the FBI recognized them as extremist groups.
  5. so .7625 = 11.2 mph ... please explain... and I get most the stuff in the middle of that last equation... need a glossary buddy... put a number down and then after provide a glossary of what each number represents... .7625 = (1/1.3114)= (48/18.3) / 2) x 14.94 = 11.39mph / 1.01666667 = 11.2 mph IDK = 1/reciprocal of IDK = 48fps/18.3fps (2.623) / 2 (first 50% cut) = 1.31147 x 14.94fps = 19.59fps = 11.39mph / 1.016667 = 11.2 = FBI speed during crucial frames
  6. They love the Trump agenda, the only fear they had was that Trump would be too protectionist, but the working reality is that Trump backed down from his trade war rhetoric, and they became confident any of his token tough talk involving treaties can easily be absorbed with little dislocation.They've showed their favor with world stock prices going through the roof in the "Trump" rally. The other concern they have is that Trump should stop his self destructive tweeting, and hope that no collusion with Russia can be proven so he can enact their globalist agenda. But even these allegations of Obstruction of Justice are starting to be discounted by the International business community, as there is confidence now that their agenda will continue under Mike Pence, but more particularly under the Republicans and Paul Ryan. Understood Pat, As I've said above. The acceptance among the multi national business community is not unconditional. But Trump is the most pro business President of our time. To those people this is the unparalleled opportunity of our time to push their agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, of environmental, consumer,and financial institutions, and to dismantle Obamacare and public sector entitlements. Reagan was the closest thing to this but the Democrats controlled Congress during the 8 years of his Presidency. In many ways the danger is much greater now than in the 60's in that through propaganda tools and legislative chicanery they could strip the mass of people of their future economic rights legally without firing one shot or assassinating one leader. These people are not the typical Trump voters which is typically a cult of personality that holds it's leader up to no real scrutiny. As I said above,They could abandon him in a second. As far as "hating Trumps guts", the most typical business leaders of that persuasion come from Silicon Valley, but if they can get their H-1b visas and expatriate their foreign dollars at a good rate, to use your analogy, they will pay the price of dinner, albeit snicker about him when they leave..
  7. Well now if you had SWHT 2010 you would know a lot about him, he is discussed throughout. Also in Shadow Warfare in regard to Guatemala, Laos, and the Artime project. Dick Russell also presents new research on him in his most recent book. There are really two independent (well maybe independent) lines of research on him, one in regard to Nagell's story, about Oswald in Japan and in MC where Hecksher was operating and very possibly the CIA cut out to Nagell in 62. Then there is the well documente4d story of Hecksher as chief of the AM/World operation in 63, Jenkin's boss and in charge of developing and supporting Artime in Am/World. Probably safe to say that a number of the most interesting folks from 1961 had become embedded in the Artime project by 63 - they would go on afterwards across Lation America, many ending up in North's phase of the Contra project. I also discuss him in regard to his Golden Triange assignment and in regard to the fact that it was he and his network who Garett Underhill was getting rumors about just before the assassination. So now you know were to look...grin. I'd say Hecksher is somewhat like Morales once was, a key player in CIA covert ops from Guatemala on but simply off the radar of most JFK related dialog.
  8. Very interesting Chris.
  9. More on Henry Hecksher please! Until a few days ago in a Hancock post I had never heard of him.
  10. Ernie - I wonder if you could answer the following question regarding FBI informants. You point out on this post that, even though reported numbers were changed later, in 1962 there were about 400 paid informants in CPUSA, which had a bit over 5000 members at that time. Do you have equivalent figures for numbers of FBI informants in other 'subversive' organizations? I suppose the definition of 'subversive' comes into play. I'm thinking about the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, numerous white power groups, etc.
  11. Ernie, can I put to you the question I asked Larry Hancock? What, in your opinion, are the best books on the FBI 1980-present? Counterterrorism a special interest.
  12. Brian, there have been efforts to contact some of the folks mentioned and the effort continues. To date all we can say for sure is that they are real people and in a couple of cases most definitely associated with Wheaton. But we need to be cautious, what we have is information that Jenkins had trained some of the individuals involved and that Quintero might have been part of that training or done some later himself during AM/WORLD. Keep in mind that Jenkins supported individuals like Quintero and Felix Quintero who had been involved in abortive paramilitary style attacks to kill Fidel Castro via ambush and sniper attacks circa 61. Chronology is critical and by 63 of course Jenkins was working for Hecksher and with Artime and Quintero...and working for them were folks like Felix Rodriquez. Names that show up again in the time frame where Wheaton is trying to get logistics/supply contracts for phase 2 Contra efforts. So we are talking about not what Jenkins and Quintero did but what the people associated with them knew in terms of the assassination and the tactical team - as well as what the team itself was told in order to get buy in for murdering a President. In NEXUS I lay out what I think is the most likely chain of events, with people higher up - at the level of Angleton and Helms - being concerned about Kennedy's emerging policies of negotiation, and acceptance of neutrality to turn back Soviet expansion. That was exacerbated by the news of his new back channel approach to Castro. And who was available to carry that message down to JM/WAVE, William Harvey with his connections to Morales and all the Castro assassination efforts via Roselli. That takes you back to exactly the same network of tactical paramilitary folks from 61. Your point is well taken, certainly the team going to Dallas would have to have been motivated, something more than just revenge being in play, and they would have needed assurances about support. That's where extreme caution is involved in using words like rogue, sanctioned, etc. Probably better to describe it than try to name it. As to Hecksher, he certainly was not connected in to the CIA power structure as Harvey via Angleton. But it is clear that he was bitter about JFK and bitter about his current assignment which nobody involved thought was going to work. Would he have given some sort of assent or support if approached by the right person, very possibly....but its unclear who that would be. Did he have the reach into the right community that Morales and Robertson did, I don't think so. At the moment some of us are still exploring Hecksher and his rather interesting role in MC during 1962, maybe we will learn something more about exactly how he got the AM/World assignment but right now its unclear as he had always been a wild card, even back in Laos not to mention Japan. One clue though, look at who bailed him out and sent him to the Golden Triangle when State wanted him fired as COS in Laos, there might be a clue there.
  13. James Comey’s friend hints at impending bombshell in Donald Trump’s Russia scandal http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/james-comeys-friend-hints-impending-bombshell-donald-trumps-russia-scandal/3636/
  14. This is excellent. Thanks for posting, Larry. I'd love to hear the other interviews with the guy in Minnesota that he references at the end. Wheaton's naming Jenkins and Quintero and the motives of the ground crew corroborates some of what we already know of the hit. When he says people in power had other reasons for getting rid of Kennedy, it implies the person orchestrating the ground level crew (perhaps Jenkins) was on orders from someone higher up and it wasn't as rogue as even some of the participants thought. Of course, we'll probably never know the connecting piece between the paramilitary people and the "political elite," but if we did I think it would give us a lot more insight. It could be Phillips, Harvey, or Shackley, but someone who stuck out to me that would be well placed in all of this is Henry Hecksher. If it were Hecksher, it may imply it was more of an officially sanctioned job than simply turning the gun on Kennedy for revenge.
  15. Trump, Khashoggi, & Germany’s Criminal Deutsche Bank http://www.madcowprod.com/2017/06/26/trump-khashoggi-germanys-criminal-deutsche-bank/
  16. Need to re-phrase what was here previously. Added on edit: CE884 WC final plat: 14.94mph (z168-z186) 21.96ft per sec / 48 frames = .4575ft per frame 12frames x .4575 = 5.49ft 21.96ft - 5.49ft = 16.47ft per sec = 11.2. mph Quite simply: 13.44mph (19.76ft per sec) /14.94mph (21.96ft per sec) = .8995... x 18.3fps = 16.462..ft per sec = 11.2mph= Shaneyfelt testimony The match being: .7625 = (1/1.3114)= (48/18.3) / 2) x 14.94 = 11.39mph / 1.01666667 = 11.2 mph
  17. The station# overlap (3+29.2) of both CE884's at z161 + z168 can be sorted out this way: (14.94mph) 21.96ft per sec - 19.76ft per sec (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/&do=findComment&comment=328146) = 2.2ft per sec =1.5 mph If you do the math for the initial two entries of both CE884's (z161-z166) and (z168-z171) you'll find the speeds are 2.24 and 3.74. Difference = 1.5mph
  18. The 'security clearances" were originally the responsibility of the Investigative Division (Division 1 of the FBI) but there were several re-organizations within the FBI which changed the responsibility for clearances. Also, it depends what you mean by "security clearances". Sometimes, the FBI was not involved because another agency (such as Defense Department) did their own investigations (such as through ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence later known as Naval Intelligence Section) or the Army's G-2 Section or the Air Force's OSI). In 1958, George Scatterday became Section Chief of newly re-organized "Name Check Section" in the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division. This was a merger of the Special Memoranda Unit of the Liaison Section of DID with the Name Check Unit of the Investigative Division to form the new Name Check Section effective 10/21/58. However, a couple years later, the Name Check Unit transferred again from Domestic Intelligence to the General Investigative Division. Another complicating factor: Almost always, cabinet-level appointments plus heads of departments and Supreme Court appointments (i.e. positions that required Senate confirmation) would trigger a full FBI field office investigation. Such field investigations would look into just about everything: education, military service, credit history, marital history, local law enforcement interactions (parking tickets to arrests or convictions) family background (brothers, sisters, sometimes even aunts/uncles and cousins) reputation in neighborhood, employment history, political activities, etc. BUT, sometimes the White House (or a federal agency) would instruct the FBI to just perform a cursory investigation without going into all the detail just listed. Also--keep in mind that, in the final analysis, the requesting agency or department would make the final determination regarding whether or not to authorize a security clearance. In fact, there are instances when the FBI discovered significant derogatory background information but the originating agency decided to grant a security clearance anyway. [It appears we may have experienced a recent situation like this with respect to General Mike Flynn and, perhaps, Jared Kushner.]
  19. Hi: Another subject that I began studying near the beginning of my media and political studies was organized skepticism. I gradually became appalled. I could call them the politically active arm of mainstream science, but that is too gentle a term. I eventually realized that it was largely a criminal enterprise, after I interacted with a leading “skeptic” who made a career out of libeling Dennis. His initial 15 minutes of came in the house organ of organized skepticism. He stalked me for a decade on the Internet, heaving disinformation bombs at me and anybody who promoted my work. Not long before encountering Mr. Skeptic, I stumbled into the Velikovsky issue while pursuing Carl Sagan’s debunking career. I do not consider much of Velikovsky’s corpus of work to be valid, if any of it, but Sagan’s behavior was scandalous. It even served to keep the Velikovsky issue alive much longer than it should have. Virtually all theories eventually end up in the dustbin of history. That is how science ideally works. Velikovsky’s work deserved to go there long ago. That comprehensive perspective that I was developing crossed disciplinary boundaries, and I could see that they were all related, in one way or another. As I have written, Ed Herman was the witty end of his partnership with Chomsky, and while Noam’s books had covers of academic respectability, Ed wrote Beyond Hypocrisy in 1992, with its Doublespeak Dictionary, and had a political cartoonist illustrate the book, as well as its cover. Ed wrote that the American establishment, along with its Orwellian media, had gone so far beyond hypocrisy that a new term had to be used, and Ed chose chutzpah. In his Doublespeak Dictionary, Ed defined the Chutzpah Factor thusly: “Self-righteousness, arrogance, and a sense of superiority so great that gross double standards seem entirely reasonable and no self-interested action is beyond rationalization. This factor is positively correlated with size, power, and per capita income.” Ed also is not overly structural. In his Doublespeak Dictionary, he defined a “conspiracy theory” as “A critique or explanation that I find offensive.” Ed even defined a “magic bullet” this way: “One that wends its way through several bodies, smashing bones on the way, but ends up in pristine condition, conveniently located for police attribution to the gun of choice.” Ed gets big points for that, being about the only person from the Left that gave any credence to the conspiratorial aspect of JFK’s murder. He was interested in Gary’s tale. Best, Wade
  20. Some thoughts and speculation: Doing business in Latin America I can well imagine Clay Shaw being a subscriber to Gaudet's newsletter. Do we know if the two men knew each other apart from the fact that Gaudet had an office in the Trade Mart? We should also not forget the incident that took place when Oswald (or a look-a-like?) visited the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans and asked if he could bring a gun to Mexico. That sounds very fishy to me, I think it's desinformation. Which leads me to another thought: we know that David Attlee Phillips was well connected to the world of journalism. Is it possible that Gaudet might have been one of Phillips's assets? Maybe it was through him that Phillips learned about this weird guy handing out Pro-Castro leaflets? And then Phillips digs deeper and discovers that Oswald has been to Russia? And decides to set him up and stage a phony radio debatte as part of his ongoing fight against the Fairplay for Cuba Committee? And when he learns (again through Gaudet) about Oswald's plan to go to Mexico he sets up another trap involving an impostor?
  21. I've discovered more information about Gaudet, and now know that he did use his own name on the visa application. He clearly was CIA. So if the plan was to have Gaudet be Oswald's driver to Mexico, then surely the plan was to use Gaudet as a patsy too. I mean, surely the plotters wouldn't have wanted it discovered that a CIA asset was involved in the assassination. And, as with Oswald, the plot would have required the killing of Gaudet. So I'm inclined to believe that Gaudet's role was just one of facilitator. He got stuff done. Apparently a good source of information on Gaudet is a book written by Martin Shackelford called Fair Play. David Reitzes wrote the following about Gaudet: Shackelford [in his book, Fair Play] refers to a relationship between Shaw and William George Gaudet, something worthy of investigation. Gaudet published the Latin American Newsletter out of the rent-free office at the Trade Mart. Gaudet himself had been a CIA domestic contact until 1961, and told journalist Anthony Summers in 1978 that the Newsletter was a CIA front operation. This is not a charge that can be dismissed outright: Although the Newsletter's official sponsor was Standard Fruit, a company which did a tremendous amount of business in Latin America, a great deal of its funding came from New Orleans doctor Alton Ochsner, founder of the Ochsner Clinic, who had a long-standing relationship with the CIA that has not been adequately explained with regard to his anti-Communist activities in New Orleans over the years. Gaudet himself plays a murky role in the story of Oswald's 1963 summer in New Orleans. He happened to be next in line to Oswald when Oswald applied for his Mexican tourist visa. Though the registry list was published by the Warren Commission, Gaudet's name was withheld from the public until it accidentally leaked out in 1975. Gaudet insisted he did not see Oswald that day and called the event a coincidence. He did say, however, that he'd seen Oswald around the Trade Mart and, most interestingly, he said he had witnessed Oswald conversing at length with New Orleans ultra right-wing extremist Guy Banister on several occasions. Gaudet, who is now deceased, remains something of a mystery, though his relationship to the International Trade Mart may not prove especially noteworthy, since -- according to Garrison advocate Jim DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed (p. 220) -- it was ITM employee Ted Brent, not Clay Shaw, who allowed Gaudet the use of ITM office space. As an institution prominently involved in facilitating trade with Latin America, the ITM could have had legitimate reasons for providing an office for the Latin American Newsletter. And if the Newsletter was indeed a front for a CIA operation, as Gaudet has stated, there are any number of explanations that don't require implicating anyone in high crimes or assassinations. Before we determine if Oswald went or not.... let's agree that the explanation in the WCR related to his travel to and from Mexico City is complete BS. So we either have "the" Oswald entering Mexico another way (car, plane, train) or not entering at all; IOW traveling to Dallas from New Orleans and stopping in Austin on the way. Yes, I agree that the WC explanation for "Oswald" travel within Mexico is bogus. That is to say, the bus story. "Oswald" (real or fake) could have traveled by car, train, plane, or even by ship I suppose. The reason I always default to "by car" is because a car would require a driver, and this would imply conspiracy. Which would explain why the FBI fabricated the bus story. But there is a possibility that "Oswald" traveled with an accomplice by other means. And that, while the FBI could have simply ignored any potential accomplice aboard the vessel (train, plane, boat) in their reporting, they chose to play it safe and go with the bus fabrication. But don't be surprised if I always say it was a road trip. Why do you say that "Oswald" SNEAKED into Mexico? Do you mean, if he went by car instead of a means that requires purchasing tickets that can be found? Yeah, I guess that going by car would be"sneaking" in, i.e. making it harder to trace. I would just reply as follows: If the plotters wanted the trip to look real, all they needed to do is actually have a real trip. Whether by car, bus, train or whatever. It isn't necessarily important that the FBI actually be able to find the evidence. The important thing is that there be no holes discovered in the evidence. If a real trip occurred, there can be no holes that might be discovered. That does seem to have been a mistake made. And then it looks like somebody tried to correct it by typing "VALIDA POR 15 DIAS" below the application number. Which the WC ignored ended up ignoring. I'm not surprised by this. Mistakes are made, even in masterful plots. Are you questioning how it was the DFS became aware of the Oswald trip to MC so quickly? Or just the part about specifically checking 9/26, 9/27, and 10/3 records only? They could have known about Oswald's trip to Mexico so quickly because of the wires being sent from Mexico City CIA station to the FBI about Oswald's being there. The telephone intercepts with Oswald naming himself. It is hard to believe that the U.S. authorities figured out so quickly the dates Oswald arrived and left MC. Of course, David Philips may have fed the dates to the FBI.. and DFS. And it's hard to believe that a cover up (alteration of bus records) was already in the works on 11/22. BTW are you sure that the DFS got the bus records only for those particular dates? Are you sure that they got the us records on the day of the assassination? Actually I have at times wondered why the FBI didn't just cover up the who Mexico trip. But I guess they had no choice but to reveal the story. Presumably it was in the news that Sylvia Duran and Azcue were in police custody. That needed explaining. And who knows what else came out or may have come out. So, yes, I guess it was in the FBI and CIA's best interest to show that Oswald was actually there. In fact, even if Oswald wasn't there and it was an imposter, it was still in their best interest to show that Oswald had been there. Otherwise how could they explain away the fact that there was an Oswald imposter going to the consulates in MC? What is that about the voice actually being Oswald's "a few days later?" I'd never heard that before. Did I understand you correctly? Well, I for one don't believe Oswald had anything to do with the consulate visits or phone calls. If he did go to Mexico, he did so only to create a record of him going there. If he did go to Mexico, he did something other than visiting and calling consulates. Maybe he went there ostensibly for FPCC business. I mean, that may have been what he thought he was doing there. That's probably true. And even if he did go there, that would make little difference in our analysis given that he didn't do anything of substance there. (According to what I believe.) According to my theory, the imposter did NOT do a crappy job. He actually traveled by car to Mexico City. Any trail he left (for example, stopping off at a bar somewhere or whatever) was real and by definition cannot be crappy. The crappy job was by the coverup artists. They had no interest in investigating a road trip, given that Oswald could not drive and a road trip meant that he had to have had a driver, and such a thing would begin to look like a conspiracy. So the coverup artists had to fabricate the bus ride where Oswald supposedly traveled solo. The assassination plotters wanted to show a conspiracy. The cover up artists wanted to show a lone gunman.
  22. Jim, Yeah he was my guest, for a full hour. I have the air check somewhere on cassette. It was about 1993. All the hosts of public affairs shows had to get their own guests, and I can't remember how I got him, but it was remarkably easy, to the astonishment of my colleagues.. We talked mostly world politics. The first Persian Gulf war was the last major world incident at that time, and we talked about that, but we hit upon a lot of stuff.
  23. BTW Ron: Those films and photos were just really powerful. Vietnam was not like other wars. It was so unusually in so many ways. The civilians were caught in the middle of so much of it. All those bombs dropped on what, rice paddies and palm trees? And the US army started falling apart in 1969. I knew a captain there. He said when Nixon announced the first withdrawals with more to come, that is when we knew it was over. He said there was no was the ARVN was going to defeat both eh Viet Cong and the Army of North Vietnam. He said if the Americans could not do it, the ARVN had no chance. So the army began to collapse. As John Kerry so memorably said on the DIck Cavett show: Who wants to be the last guy to die for a mistake?
  24. At the risk of jumping in the middle, Kirk, I think Michael's point was that many many rich and powerful people hate Trump's guts...even though he plans on buying them off by cutting their taxes, and allowing them to pollute as much as they want. The embarrassment level is just too high. Think about it this way. You're rich. And hungry. Now, you have a choice. You can go to dinner and get treated like a king. But it comes at a price. Or you can get a free steak dinner, served by an orange clown who openly mocks the handicapped, and denounces the starving crowd outside as a bunch of pathetic losers. Many if not most will choose to pay the price.
  25. Kirk: When you say you did a radio interview with him, does that mean you were the interviewer, or you were on with him as a guest? What was the occasion?
  26. As the great novelist and observer of history Gore Vidal once noted, those in power “don’t have to conspire, because they all think alike. The president of General Motors and the president of Chase Manhattan Bank really are not going to disagree much on anything, nor would the editor of the New York Times disagree with them. They all tend to think quite alike, otherwise they would not be in those jobs.” Vidal later said of himself, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist - I’m a conspiracy analyst.” To this Michael said: Gore Vidal said, presumably about the dark, political and "conspiratorial" events of the 1960's Wrong Michael,Maybe you should learn more about who Gore Vidal is.He made that top quote in 1980! Then at the end of the quote,Vidal says: “I’m not a conspiracy theorist - I’m a conspiracy analyst.” He made this quote in 2007! Why do you assume Vidal was talking about the 60's? Michael said, So we are not looking at the same landscape of power brokers and motives as the one which Gore Vidal describing. Oh contraire, Michael. And they've been pretty successful at it. If you personally haven't experienced it, Maybe you should read about the marginalization of the middle class that's gone on since the 1980's and get back to me. I can't imagine why you would assume that those remarks would be more fitting of the 60's than they are now, unless you're completely out of touch with now. They think alike and have the same world outlook. Those comments are as true now as ever. Explain to me with a "well built and logical argument" why they're not. He also made this quote below, not in the "dark and conspiratorial events of the 1960's" but in 2002! For those who suspect "60's dark conspiratorial events" happening then. Apparently, "conspiracy stuff" is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.
  1. Load more activity