Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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

Kirk Gallaway

Members
  • Content count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kirk Gallaway

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Gatos, Ca.

Recent Profile Visitors

975 profile views
  1. Ray Marcus: The Left and the Death of Kennedy

    Pathetic, I used to like I.F. Stone. But the others, definitely sounds like some fear of retribution.
  2. Great article Doug, and definitely the most cogent article you've posted regarding the real war of ideas going on now.The real struggle is as lost now to the average person as the meaning of the Assassination of John Kennedy was lost in say, 1965. I'll highlight what I feel are some major passages. The Definition of "exploitation" to this group with this plan:: "but what was exploitation was when less-wealthy citizens went to government for things like public education, good roads, canals and all those kinds of things. So he actually posed it as what we would call today makers and takers. So Calhoun saw himself as a maker and saw other citizens, white citizens at the time, who were the ones voting for these things, as takers, and that idea flowed into modern libertarianism — this notion that there isn’t exploitation in the economic realm, the exploitation comes from the political realm, where majorities gang up on minorities of propertied individuals." **************** And this about a social safety net: "I think you could also watch for their language. This is a cause that has opposed social security from its creation. These people are totally hostile to the principle of social insurance. They think we should all be individually responsible for our needs, ultimately. But they also know that that’s a terribly unpopular thing to say. Huge majorities of American people support Social Security, support Medicare, want to make them better and stronger. Buchanan advised in great detail about Social Security at the beginning of the early 1980s. What they need to do is fear monger and create a sense of crisis that these programs are unsustainable, they’ll never be solvent. So they use an Orwellian language of reform when really what they want to do is undermine the program. I think the first thing to do would be ask them fundamental questions, like do you support the principle of Social Security, do you support the principle of Medicare? " Yes, do you support "the principle" of Social Security, the principle of Medicare? That question could be asked of say, Rand Paul tomorrow! You see such fearmongering all the time about the sustainability of Social Security. A majority of Americans under 40 have come to believe that they probably won't have it, so the letdown won't be as bad. It's a total fraud, but until they realize it's within their power as citizens to demand certain economic rights, they will probably lose them.
  3. Whew, can these people get any more seedy? Most of us have heard that a decade ago, Jared Kushner's father was found guilty for tax evasion and went to prison, and that that case was prosecuted by then prosecutor Chris Christie, which has been cited as the reason for the ousting of Christie by the younger Kushner in the Trump campaign. The conflict was involving an inner family battle where Kushner also pleaded guilty to retaliating against a cooperating witness in the case — his sister. He did so by setting a trap in which he hired a prostitute to lure his sister's husband into a sexual encounter in a New Jersey hotel, where the action was secretly photographed and videotaped. Kushner sent the pictures and tape to his sister as revenge, apparently motivated by the belief that she and her husband were helping U.S. Attorney Christie and his prosecutors. Still according to the article, Jared feels his Father's treatment (a 2 year prison sentence commuted to 14 months) was "obviously unjust in terms of the way they pursued him." Do I see a family pattern of denial? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-the-sordid-case-behind-jared-kushners-grudge-against-chris-christie/article/2620427
  4. Cord Meyer and the Assassination of JFK

    Uh huh, Meyer was Hunt's link to LBJ, which I thought was maybe somewhat incongruent. I've suspected that Hunt was doing a partial hangout,giving up people from his circles that were widely thought at the time to be part of the conspiracy , Phillips,Harvey,Morales, Sturgis, and tying them through Meyer to LBJ to protect Daddy (Dulles, Angleton) and the agency, and tell the ultimate juicy story, that a Vice President killed a standing President to fulfill his ambition to office.
  5. Cord Meyer and the Assassination of JFK

    Prior to Hunt's deathbed "confession", the only thing I had ever heard about Cord Meyer concerning the Kennedy assassination was his response in his later life when asked who killed his ex-wife and he purportedly said "the same people who killed Kennedy". The first I had ever heard of his direct involvement was from Hunt.
  6. JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick

    I've seen this, that old Englishman, particularly at the beginning, as I recall does have some good historical context and useful information but he is a bit daft. He says with certainty that there were, I think 7 assassins whose intentions were to cut JFK's head completely. off. Well there goes the LN theory! Ok, they failed to make the overkill. But as far as getting away scot free, I guess that was always pretty much in the bag. I hope the guy takes his heart medicine (if he's still alive) because it is easy to get a bit overboard, when you're dealing with........Satan!
  7. Ron, If you're talking specifically about DVP's KFC. As time goes on for me, that would be like saying "Make Flatulence Great Again!"
  8. Frank Rich: How a presidency ends

    Evan, Flynn below was said to blame Clapper for his dismissal from the Obama Administration. This is from Doug's most recent post," The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians" in which Matt Tait makes reference to my earlier post, "GOP operative sought Clinton E-mails from hackers. implied a connection to Flynn". Although it wasn’t initially clear to me how independent Smith’s operation was from Flynn or the Trump campaign, it was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well. Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign. Smith told of Flynn’s deep dislike of DNI Clapper, whom Flynn blamed for his dismissal by President Obama. Smith told of Flynn’s moves to position himself to become CIA Director under Trump, but also that Flynn had been persuaded that the Senate confirmation process would be prohibitively difficult. He would instead therefore become National Security Advisor should Trump win the election, Smith said. He also told of a deep sense of angst even among Trump loyalists in the campaign, saying “Trump often just repeats whatever he’s heard from the last person who spoke to him,” and expressing the view that this was especially dangerous when Trump was away.
  9. Doug, this is making a direct reference to the post I made about the WSJ piece a couple of days ago.. GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn Matt Tait talks of his correspondences with the same Republican operative. Peter Smith, who talked to the Wall Street Journal only 10 days ago about his efforts to expose alleged Hillary e-mails during the campaign and has since died. This is from the Daily Coz, leftist, who admittedly have an axe to grind, but speculate on his sudden demise, which does seem very fishy.. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/30/1676733/-Peter-Smith-Talked-To-The-Wall-Street-Journal-And-Ten-Days-Later-Was-Dead In the WSJ article, Peter Smith is described as follows: "A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort”: As maybe as a bit of a teaser, as this Matt Tait article is a bit long, though worthwhile to read. This is an excerpt from the article where Matt Tait's details his conversations with Peter Smith. Although it wasn’t initially clear to me how independent Smith’s operation was from Flynn or the Trump campaign, it was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well. Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign. Smith told of Flynn’s deep dislike of DNI Clapper, whom Flynn blamed for his dismissal by President Obama. Smith told of Flynn’s moves to position himself to become CIA Director under Trump, but also that Flynn had been persuaded that the Senate confirmation process would be prohibitively difficult. He would instead therefore become National Security Advisor should Trump win the election, Smith said. He also told of a deep sense of angst even among Trump loyalists in the campaign, saying “Trump often just repeats whatever he’s heard from the last person who spoke to him,” and expressing the view that this was especially dangerous when Trump was away. Over the course of a few phone calls, initially with Smith and later with Smith and one of his associates—a man named John Szobocsan—I was asked about my observations on technical details buried in the State Department’s release of Secretary Clinton’s emails (such as noting a hack attempt in 2011, or how Clinton’s emails might have been intercepted by Russia due to lack of encryption). I was also asked about aspects of the DNC hack, such as why I thought the “Guccifer 2” persona really was in all likelihood operated by the Russian government, and how it wasn’t necessary to rely on CrowdStrike’s attribution as blind faith; noting that I had come to the same conclusion independently based on entirely public evidence, having been initially doubtful of CrowdStrike’s conclusions. Towards the end of one of our conversations, Smith made his pitch. He said that his team had been contacted by someone on the “dark web”; that this person had the emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server (which she had subsequently deleted), and that Smith wanted to establish if the emails were genuine. If so, he wanted to ensure that they became public prior to the election. What he wanted from me was to determine if the emails were genuine or not. It is no overstatement to say that my conversations with Smith shocked me. Given the amount of media attention given at the time to the likely involvement of the Russian government in the DNC hack, it seemed mind-boggling for the Trump campaign—or for this offshoot of it—to be actively seeking those emails. To me this felt really wrong. In my conversations with Smith and his colleague, I tried to stress this point: if this dark web contact is a front for the Russian government, you really don’t want to play this game. But they were not discouraged. They appeared to be convinced of the need to obtain Clinton’s private emails and make them public, and they had a reckless lack of interest in whether the emails came from a Russian cut-out. Indeed, they made it quite clear to me that it made no difference to them who hacked the emails or why they did so, only that the emails be found and made public before the election.
  10. The Deceptions and DIsguises of Noam Chomsky

    Ramone, So you mean an encore interview? I'd love to, but I don't have a show anymore. It sounds like you've had a lot more exposure to Chomsky than I have. If you think the reason he's avoided this is just his general contrarian nature, that's interesting. But as I pointed out generally and Jim pointed out specifically with Cockburn. It was a mammoth career choice. I know in later days of the 60's the fallout from the Vietnam War relegated the JFK assassination investigation way to the back burner, as it was still in it's incipient stage.It was the more obvious fish to fry for Chomsky. Not that he couldn't have courageously done both. I did see an excerpt out of context from Robin O' Neal (who was at Dealey Plaza and the only press person upon hearing the shooting to immediately leave the press car) who said something early on to the effect that "At a certain point, you'd have to be a fool to not consider conspiracy". He certainly toned down later, as I've seen video of events later with Lehrer (who always been a WR advocate) and he's completely toned down and did not cast any doubts on the WC findings..
  11. I've got a synopsis from Mother Jones from a Wall Street Journal piece, and a link to the article for those who are subscribed to WSJ. If this is true, it is a smoking gun bombshell.Trump tweets have certainly taken on a more desperate tone of late. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/the-wall-street-journal-just-published-a-bombshell-story-about-the-russia-scandal/
  12. 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..
  13. The Deceptions and DIsguises of Noam Chomsky

    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.
  14. 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.
  15. Doug, This is really a great point that I've tried to make. The antagonists are not "dark and hidden" as they once were. All the multi national corporate industrialists believe the same thing no matter what their country of origin is. 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. You can call it a "conspiracy" if you like, but it's been around all our lives, and it is a much greater problem than any "Deep State" problem involving our government and say it's military procurement, (though to a lesser degree, it is inclusive of that). If enough people were directly confronted with picking between a)holding on to their medical benefits and b)Pursuing an aggressive military presence abroad, there's no doubt that the majority would choose holding on to their benefits. These existential choices are coming to the foreground because of the potential success of the bold implementation of this same international corporate agenda.
×