Douglas Caddy

Members
  • Content count

    4,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Douglas Caddy

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 03/23/1938

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Houston, Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

46,221 profile views
  1. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/369019-donald-trumped-hillary-clinton-us-presidency/
  2. http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/ahead-of-recounts-erred-trump-favor/306/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.45998fd7f96d&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
  3. This is why Trump is so adamant about ending the recounts. http://www.palmerreport.com/news/hillary-clinton-catches-20000-votes-pennsylvania-recount-begins/305/
  4. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/janney-peter/83371 https://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Conspiracy-Kennedy-Pinchot/dp/1510708928/ctoc
  5. From the article: One of Mr. Trump’s most lucrative initiatives has been the licensing of the Trump brand — and name. There are Trump towers, hotels and shopping malls in many countries. This first presents an ethical problem: No president should allow his name to be put on commercial properties in return for payment. The presidency is not a branding opportunity. President Trump can’t do this either unless he wants to create the impression that he is being paid off. But it also presents a global security risk. A building branded with the name of an American president — any president, but perhaps especially Mr. Trump — would be a tempting target for terrorists and other enemies of the United States. Who is going to protect the buildings? Will the Trump organization hire a security firm to do the job, or will the American taxpayer be on the line for the bill? Will foreign governments offer to pay to secure the properties — a subsidy of the Trump organization that would probably violate the Emoluments Clause? If a terrorist attack, a botched security operation or some other tragedy happens on a Trump property, the United States could easily get drawn into a conflict abroad. And our adversaries know this. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of Mr. Trump’s conflict-of-interest problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/opinion/trumps-business-empire-isnt-just-an-ethical-disaster.html
  6. From the article: You can smell Natalie Portman's Oscar nomination a mile away. http://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Jackie-Kennedy-White-House-Tour-Real-Video-42779077?utm_campaign=desktop_share&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=buzzsugar
  7. Not to be missed. Released by Greg Palast on Nov. 30, 2016 http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-inside-guide-presidential-recount/
  8. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/05/911-filling-in-the-map-tracing-the-nukes/
  9. http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2016/11/29/Natalie-Portman-details-horror-Jackie-Kennedy-experienced-during-JFK-assassination/7011480338417/
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/security-experts-join-jill-steins-election-changing-recount-campaign
  11. Congratulations, Jim. Your new website is a literary feast.
  12. Post script to my above posting: I believe the not too subtle blackmail phone call below from Howard Hunt to Chuck Colson in the White House in November1972, right after Nixon was re-elected, sealed Dorothy Hunt's fate the next month. The decision was made soon after it that Hunt had to be shut up and Dorothy, as the reluctant courier of the hush money, was to pay the price. How could Hunt not have foreseen the consequences of his phone call before he made it? Just look at Trump and Hillary and see how ruthless are those at the top of the pyramid? It is true today and was true in 1972. Shakespeare got it right in his writings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwNYgiVv-rs
  13. Pat: William F. Buckley secured the lawyer for Hunt. The lawyer represented Hunt for years, including the trial in which Mark Lane was a principal. Thus, I would hazard to suggest that the removal of the material from the book was done by the lawyer upon the direction of Buckley. I tend to think that Buckley was not a close student of the Kennedy assassination and the idea that Hunt had a role in it boggled his mind, causing him to reject it outright. It wasn't until decades after Watergate that information began to emerge that Hunt and some of his Cuban-American burglars were also involved in the Dallas murder. So Buckley in my opinion never did possess the full picture. St. John Hunt in his speech at the recent 4th Annual JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas attacked Buckley, whom he termed a CIA agent. It must be remembered that Buckley was aghast that Hunt had delegated to him as the children's godfather the responsibility of taking care of Hunt's four children once Dorothy was dead and Hunt faced years in prison. St. John was especially critical of Buckley for placing the youngest, David, at age twelve with a Cuban-American in Miami who turned out to be a drug dealer. St. John told the Dallas audience that his mother, Dorothy, had cautioned Hunt in the planning of Watergate that the higher ups were merely using him. Hunt rejected Dorothy's wise counsel. The higher-up did use him and Hunt in turn, as a longtime intelligence agent, used others, starting with his Cuban-American friends by enlisting them as burglars, by dropping the case in my lap as his attorney hours after the arrests and then disappearing for weeks, by using St. John at age 17 to help him dispose of evidence employed in the Watergate operation by tossing it in the Chesapeake Canal only hours after the case broke, and by enlisting Dorothy, who had opposed the planning of Watergate, to be the courier for the hush money. So Hunt was used and he turned around and used others. When I saw the movie "A Most Important Man" based on a book by John Le Carre I immediately recognized the protagonist, an intelligence agent played brilliantly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, as being someone just like Hunt. St. John said in Dallas that his father, after Dorothy's death, had assembled his four children and told them that he was going to plead guilty in Watergate because he feared that if he did not do so they would become victims just as had Dorothy. In some ways for Hunt his intense suffering for what he had done in Watergate was a form of Karma. Hunt, as a CIA agent, for many years was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Central and South America that was done in the name of fighting communism but more realistically was done to help American corporations, such as United Fruit Company, reap the profits from their enterprises there. Watergate for him was payback. It was also payback for America. Doug
  14. I am not a member of CAPA, an organization that I learned about for the first time at the recent 4th JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas. Thus, I cannot answer your question and suggest that you direct it to one of CAPA leaders using its website to do so.
  15. Well worth reading. http://www.hogueprophecy.com/2016/11/clinton-recount-electoral-college/