Mark Stapleton

[...] JFK CHANGED profoundly [...]

_______________________________________

Maybe it was a result of the acid trip(s) he is alleged to have taken with Mary Pinchot Meyer.

--Thomas

_______________________________________

Thomas,

I know you were jesting, but if he did take a trip with Mary Meyer (and I think he probably did), then it detracted from his performance as President not one bit.

He had successfully resolved the steel dispute, the Cuban missile crisis, the Berlin crisis, established a real time connection with the Soviet leadership, and signed off on the nuclear test ban treaty with them in August. World leaders were regarding him with increasing respect.

He had the support of the labor movement and was well ahead in the polls. The prospects for re-election were good.

Some might consider that a cautious experiment in expanding one's consciousness the natural recourse of an inquiring mind. Such an adventure would not be for everyone but as far as I can tell, it had no adverse effect on JFK's judgement.

Great post, Myra.

Mark, I listened to an interesting discussion on a morning TV show over here a week or so ago (I don't normally watch these magazine programmes btw...) and one journalist made the interesting point that the fundamentals in the market are still pretty sound ad that there is a lot of hype elevating the sub prime to disaster levels because business is trying to depress the cost of lending.

I have no idea if this is an unfounded conspiracy theory or an enlightened insight, but have placed this morsel on the back boiler to remember as things unfold. For a mainstream journalist to propagate this view is, in any event, an interesting perspective

David, I'm not sure I follow.

Was the journo saying that business was trying to reduce the cost of lending i.e. red tape and regulatory requirements, or the cost of borrowing?

With US interest rates low and still falling, the cost of borrowing is almost negligible. The interest rate cuts and Bush's fiscal package makes it look to me like they're administering CPR to a very sick economy.

And when he says the fundamentals are sound, it seems like a cliche. How can the market fundamentals be sound when companies conduct major business 'off the balance sheet' and hence beyond regulatory oversight? Listed companies are supposed to conduct their affairs above board, or that's what I thought. Maybe he believes that regulation has no role in a properly functioning marketplace.

I agree with your earlier comments about the lack of proper regulation as a contributing factor in this mess. And it's a good idea to remember that journalist's name, too.

There is no room in Chomsky's world for the X-Factor: the awakening of the spiritual impulse.

JFK exhibited just such a metamorphosis. Hence the need for the self-correcting system to act on its own behalf by removing and replacing a flawed part.

Was the Cold Warrior who signed off on the Bay of Pigs invasion the same man who, some 26 months later, reminded us that "we are all mortal"?

No, he wasn't. Valid point. That's why they couldn't take a risk with RFK, imo.

I'd like to see Noam explain that away.

The problem related to the foregoing is not with the real money deposited in banks that they lend and use, but what the article called 'cyber' money -- off balance sheet instruments that aren't really real when it comes down to it. This whole thing has the same feel to it as the Savings & Loan debacle back in the 1980's.

I remain suspicious that there is a massive underlying scam involved - above and beyond the inherent blind greed of the fraternity of bankers.

I don't know if I'm right but I suspect that the $450 trillion 'fear' mountain is partly fictitious to the extent that it is not 'naked'. These sums are usually offset to a quite large degree (a debit position balanced elsewhere by a balancing credit position)

But the point is that such a vital business sector as banking is not effectively regulated. In fact, regulation is something of a joke. Only when the most senior members of the board are put in jail for a long time, and all their assets confiscated as a punishment, will there be something measuring up to a deterrent. Such a regulatory framework would also need to prohibit plea bargaining and prohibit fines in lieu of prison for it to have any enduring impact.

But that ain't never going to happen and so we are left to experience an endless reprise of boom and bust, pump and dump.

Richard, the BIS used to be owned by all sorts of entities and even individuals, although it was founded back in 1930 by the then six main central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom plus three US privatelyt owned banks -- J.P. Morgan, First National Bank of New York and First National Bank of Chicago. Today the BIS is owned entirely by central banks )due to a controversial recent change in the rules). The BIS was always intended to be the central bankers 'club' and, indeed, was founded and structured to control the world politically and economically (see Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy & Hope that details this).

It is, therefore, the primary instrument of global control of the ruling elite.

It's a massive regulatory failure. Those with 'real money' deposited in banks will learn this if the banks holding their deposits go under.

If the economic collapse is as big as the signs are indicating, there'll be bloody hell to pay. Maybe this is why the US has been gearing up for martial law. There'll be a lot of angry people around.

Politically, it could mean anything. My crystal ball is saying that America will swing sharply left. If the economic deterioration accelerates during the election campaign, there'll be plenty of frustration at the limited choices which the current US political system offers---namely, none.

Ah, but was the American public shown Bush's full resume before they hired him to be President in 2000?

I think not. A fake but glossier resume was used.

I suggest his instant dismissal. That goes for the rest of his administration.

Now, who can be hired to act as caretaker Pres. until next January?

Jimmy Carter. His resume is good.

Mark Stapleton wrote:

“And I like the way you dispatched Len to the boundary. “

I haven’t been “dispatched” anywhere Mark, I’ve been busy with other matters. Oh and speaking of undocumented claims are you making any progress in turning up ANY evidence in support of your ‘Ford was Fisher’s puppet’ theory yet? It’s been well over a month since I asked you to provide some.

You misinterpret my words once again. I was referring to the cricketing terminology whereby the batsman dispatches the ball to the boundary, which was analogous to the way Richard dealt with you. I was not implying that you had gone anywhere (heaven forbid).

As for Fisher/Ford, I haven't forgotten it. Sometimes I'm busy with other matters, too. Urgent requests for information from you are a low priority for me, you know, with you being a shill and everything. It's burning you up, isn't it?

How could a billionaire industrialist like Fisher, with a deep love of Israel and a keen interest in politics, possibly exert any influence over a simple minded politician like Ford, a fellow native of Michigan, who Fisher also apparently 'discovered'? Yes, it's such a reckless accusation isn't it.

Is the CIA monitoring our Forum?

No

Well missed.

Just my opinions here, but my personal belief is that we serfs are headed for some very very grim times.

I agree. Welcome to the Forum, Richard.

And I like the way you dispatched Len to the boundary.

I'm not so sure Mark. The damage of higher oil to the using pubic hurts -- obviously. But surely the US oil & gas community are like pigs in muck. And governments benefit from higher revenue. I always ask the question why, in times of war, does the oil price tend to rise? An answer that strikes me as being sensible is that the hike in price is a covert tax imposed on the rest of the world to offset the UKUSA camp's cost of the war. Harming China and Russia in the wallet is also, I think, an added motive, to see the price increase.

My take, overall, is that it's all about transferring wealth from the many to the few -- it's always about transferring wealth from the many to the few...

Everything else is an elaborate illusion.

David,

While the rising oil price is a windfall for the oil industry, it causes too much damage to the rest of the economy. Inflation will skyrocket and there'll be less disposable income remaining to spend on other, more fragile sectors of the US economy--like the car industry, for example. Many countries might satisfactorily accomodate the reality of steadily rising oil prices but this isn't just any country. At 20 million barrels a day, the US dwarfs all others in consumption so the shock waves hit their economy with much more intensity than any other country. Not only that, they also can't afford it. I heard George Bush was begging the oil producers to increase production the other day.

The US oil consumption level is an albatross around their neck. It's going to take them too long to turn it around. The oil producers control America's fate already, imo.

China and India are getting richer and hoping to emulate America's golden era but unfortunately for them they will never fully copy America's prosperity because the US flourished mostly during the era of cheap energy. That's now over.

That said, maybe you're right. The oil companies might just bleed the US dry.

Despite the unpopularity of Iraq, war over oil must still be a tempting option for the US, especially if their economy gets close to collapse. That would be the Texan solution.

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree that martial law would not benefit the controllers at this stage. They still have complete control of the political system (although some may fear Barack Obama). If they start losing control of the political system then it might be a different story.

I agree with your point about patriotism, Charles. Patriotism and Nationalism are favorite tools of the controllers. They allow logic and reason to be swept aside.

I think the Military killed Kennedy and were financed by Texas Oil and taught new tricks by the CIA.

Please read Brothers.

It's hard to imagine any conspiracy model which doesn't include the military industrial complex.

As mentioned here on the Forum and numerous other places, LBJ's issuing of NSAM 273 one day after JFK's burial reeks of symbolism. Why the big rush? His next NSAM was December 20--a full 24 days later.

NSAM 273 superseeded JFK's more ambiguous NSAM 263 and was basically a declaration of war on North Vietnam and the communist ideology.

Paragraph 5 is the one I find particularly fascinating. Ostensibly aimed at assisting in changing the beliefs of the people of the Mekong Delta, it sanctions control of the Delta, its hamlets and productivity, and uses curious words about the proceeds being used to combat 'anti-communist' forces. Of course, the plain English translation is, 'we're setting up a large scale illicit drug industry here and some of the money will go towards CIA activities--so it's good for America'.

NSAM 273:

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archi...ams/nsam273.asp

I'm not an American but I agree, John. It's becoming like royal accession. Further evidence that the US political system has been corrupted beyond repair. I think there's a case for making an amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting direct relatives of former Presidents from running for the office.

Otherwise wealthy, well connected families might provide long lines of Presidents, including clueless dunces like the present incumbent. Money and connections were the main reasons Bush was twice elected and America is now paying a high price for that.

This piece by Michael Klaire nominates oil as the main factor behind America's looming economic crisis:

http://www.alternet.org/story/75649/?page=entire

In 1998, when the bubble was taking shape, crude oil cost about $11 a barrel and the United States produced half of the petroleum it consumed; but that was the last year in which the fundamentals were so positive. American reliance on imported petroleum crossed the 50% threshold that very year and has been rising ever since, while the cost of imported oil hit the $100 per barrel mark this January 2 for the first time, an all-time record (though the price was once briefly higher, as measured in older, less inflated dollars).

It's the reason America will struggle to avoid an economic meltdown, imo. The massive overconsumption of oil, mostly imported and skyrocketing in price, renders America economically helpless. Since the election of George Bush, the US has been so preoccupied with military interventions it has failed to notice that the era of cheap energy is over. The realignment of the world order is under way, and the US has been left at the starting gate by the most irresponsible and reckless administration in its history.

Here in Australia, the Rudd Government is moving quickly to reposition its regional alliances. The US is taking a back seat as Rudd moves closer to China. Today he criticised the Taiwanese independence movement as a further show of support for China. By the time Bush leaves office, will America have any friends at all?

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

...

Huffington post has video of Shriver's speech at the Obama rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Click on the video link under the headline.

Thanks for posting that, Myra.

Maria's got the Kennedy charisma. Very impressive. Ditto the intro from Michelle Obama. There's a political future for her I suspect.

Maria's married to Arnie and he's a Republican. Hmmm. Isn't that a kick in the head. Luckily, Arnie's tough.

It's all coming together for Obama. He's California. The most important statistic in his favor is that he leads the all important Kennedy clan endorsement race. Kennedy endorsements are becoming much sought after commodities. Good to see.

People are now realising, due to the mainstream's weakening grip on political discussion and agenda, that the JFK show was a pretty good show. America won't stomach another bad show like the Bush double feature. It stank and stinks.

Now they're trying to sell a Clinton double feature. One with a bit of a twist, anyway.

p.s. the only double feature worth seeing would have been the Kennedy one. It was sold out then cancelled before intermission, of course. And the theatre management didn't even apologise.

Men like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush aren't all bad.

Sure, overlooking a couple of million dead Vietnamese, a million dead Iraqis,

millions of addicts who got hooked on Reagan's contra coke, etc.

Johnson was planning to go to war and recognized the need to pacify blacks

before sending a disproportionate number of them off to 'Nam.

I could go on.

Didn't Hitler love his Mom? Not such a bad sort...

I suspect this is part of the answer. However, you have to remember that when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Right Act he stated to associates that signing the bill had lost the South for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. This was true and enabled right-wing supporters of the Democratic Party to switch to the Republicans. The 1964 Civil Rights Act therefore united the right in such a way that it destroyed the potential of the Democratic Party as a progressive force.

I still don't see much courage in Johnson's actions. Forgive my seemingly limitless cynicism, but Goldwater already had the Republican nomination by this time. LBJ knew he only needed to swing slightly left in order to occupy the political middle ground. JFK knew he would have BG on toast if the Republicans nominated him and LBJ also relished his chances against this unsophisticated redneck.

Throw in the media's messianic support for LBJ in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, and the war LBJ started in August '64 against the 'communist menace' and LBJ was a shoo-in in '64. He wasn't too worried about temporarily alienating the right wing fringe of his southern constituency, because he knew he had the media to help him appeal to the wider electorate. After all, they helped him cover up the assassination, venomously attacking all WC dissenters.

Of course LBJ would portray himself to colleagues as some kind of courageous statesman gambling with his political future for the greater good of America. That's his familiar behavioral pattern. However, I've yet to see any genuine courage on LBJ's part in my analysis of his public or private life.

I always wondered about the Civil Rights Act and how incongruous it seems when analysing LBJ's career. I think Cliff Varnell hit the nail on the head and I'm kicking myself for not tumbling earlier.

Nice call, Cliff.

Yes, what great courage LBJ displayed.

Escalating the Vietnam war without telling the public. Using his position to enrich his wealthy industrialist backers. Accepting suitcases full of payoff money. Eliminating those like Marshall and Kinser who could have exposed his corrupt activities. Establishing the WC in order to enable Kennedy's killers to go scot free. Accepting a blue star for merely being an observer in a bombing mission over New Guinea in WW2 and pretending he was a decorated hero.

Great courage indeed. The quintessential coward, bully and murderer is what the 36th President was. And I'm probably being way too kind.

And I think Cliff's rationale for the civil rights legislation is spot on. First time for me, too. But it fits LBJ's pattern of deceptive behavior perfectly.

I was angry when I heard HRC's comments re LBJ and the Civil Rights Act, too.

Fancy holding up that grotesque individual as a hero of the Democrat Party. It confirmed my suspicion of HRC and her glib superficiality.

As for Francine Torge, she clearly knows little about the respective contributions made by JFK and LBJ. If she wants to publicly hitch the Clinton wagon to LBJ and consign Obama to JFK, then she's erred badly and the Clinton team have misread history.

Ted Kennedy has every right to feel his brother's legacy was slighted. I'm glad he endorsed Obama.

Obama for President.

I came across a document about Gerry Hemming that may prove interesting to John Simkin, given his interest in Irving Davidson.

The RIF number is 104-10216-10064

The document states, in part, "Gerald Patrick Hemming, when drunk, told AMTABBY-27 that Irving Davidson was his financial backer".

The document is dated August 23rd 1967.

I am having trouble attaching the file, so I will direct you to the file on the Mary Ferrell site. If you have a membership, you can look at the document.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=17306

John

http://www.jfk-info.com/discus/messages/4/131.html?954268536

NEW D153: I. Irving Davidson was a public relations counsel with offices in

Washington, DC, and was registered with the FBI as an agent of Nicaraguan

and Israeli Governments. He was never an informant to the FBI but in the

past did furnish them with information relating to Israeli and

Latin-American activities, most of which were of interest to other

Government agencies such as the CIA to which this data was disseminated.

Most documents included in this batch are the result of an FBI investigation

of his office books under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. $25.00

Guess who Irving Davidson answered to.

John, I hope you're wrong about Gerry.

I believe I was the first person to say Obama will be killed on this Forum. Kathy

More than a few of us have been killed on this Forum.

Caesar was killed on his way to the Forum.

I'm a charter member of the cynics' chorus.

But I also remind one and all that John and Robert Kennedy did not leave us as they met us. They evolved monumentally -- spiritually and otherwise -- during their respective final years to the points where what they had been had become what they vehemently opposed.

Change is the only constant.

And change is all we can pray and hope and strive for.

Charles

Good point, Charles.

Both JFK and RFK evolved in their final years. Suspicion regarding Obama's funding is unnecessary, imo. You can't get elected without funding, as JFK was well aware.

If elected, Obama might evolve into something like JFK. It all depends on whether he decides to serve the people or the wealthy elites. Of course, if he should choose the former, his life expectancy would be significantly reduced.

The only Presidential race signs that I see in my city are Ron Paul signs.

At the gun show I attended yesterday, there were an abundance of Ron Paul buttons, with no buttons, signs or stickers for any other candidate.

He has an incredible grass roots following, which will survive and continue long after the election.

That's interesting indeed.

I would normally not be supportive of a Texas politician, after the damage done to public trust by the likes of LBJ and Shrub, but among Paul's grab bag of policies is one absolute gem--he wants to reform the drug laws, in particular those pertaining to cannabis.

Paul points out correctly that these laws lead to police corruption, increased crime levels, world's highest incarceration levels for non-violent 'criminals' and vast profit for crime families. And they cost the unsuspecting public a packet. In difficult economic times, it's hard to justify the massive cost of the prohibition infrastructure and the multitude of parasites it supports. Billions down the drain for a zero yield in productivity. It should hit five billion for January:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

I can see how Paul would cultivate a 'grass roots' following. On this issue, he talks much sense--and who could call him a hippie? He could be a man of his times.

Very nice, John. Thank you.

Was that Lou Reed in sunnies among the crowd about half way through the clip?

The Mark Lane appearance was excellent. He might be right--the only way the issue will be resolved is when the US Governemnt comes clean.

There is an effort well underway to demonize wll who would question the official United States government conspiracy theory of 9-11 by conflating and equating their efforts with those of so-called Holocaust Deniers.

One or both of the recent examples I cite below may be "innocent" -- that is, unconnected to ongoing propaganda campaigns. But in the final analysis, the damage to those honorably seeking the truth about 9-11 will be done.

See 9-11 Truth And The Holocaust , by Wendy Campbell http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell240108.htm

Better yet, see

Curt Maynard's Blog, Why do people question the holocaust?

http://curtmaynardsblog.blogspot.com/2008/...-holocaust.html

Dig the opening line of the latter:

"People question the holocaust for exactly the same reason they are currently questioning the official version of what really happened on 9-11 ... "

It will not be long before the mainstream media begins to make the 9-11/Holocaust comparisons.

Charles

They'll have a tough time doing that, imo. The circumstances were so different. However, when it comes to the mainstream media, nothing would surprise me.

You make a good point, Charles. If researchers/historians/general public believe there are holes in the official version of any historical event, they should be entitled to pursue their research and present it for evaluation. That's why jailing holocaust deniers is so stupid. As Rivero states in the Curtis Maynard blog, 'the truth doesn't need laws to support it'.

No es una problema! There are lots of places to start a way...ennie, meenie, minie, moo....I think I'll invent a false-flag fight with....Persia....poof!....

Iran would be the preferred choice. But the problem for them is that the public, and sections of the US military, are looking pretty war weary. It would be a hard sell. On the other hand, the elites running America are unpredictable and one doesn't know how they will react to the economic crisis they are facing.