Myra Bronstein

One associated thought: My Controls/Manage Ignored Users/Add a new user to your list

Ohmygod, good catch John. I didn't know that.

Mike has gotten more attention drawn to him from you bringing up the issue in several threads now than what I posted. As i recall, it was Jack who I responded to by merely suggesting that his lost post may have been an act of God. I think Jack's direction was that it was deleted by someone at the highest levels of the forum. Hey Miles ... maybe you can crack that mystery one day.As far as John deleting any threads - I was not aware, nor do I disagree with his decision to do so. I responded to Jack - Mike responded to me - so I responded back to Mike letting him know that we all could have things about us looked down upon by someone somewhere. From then on it was mostly you (Miles) that made a big deal out of it all. ... That's not true at all. I thought you were completely out of line in the removed thread, I said so, and I reported you for it. No one had to make a big deal out of it Miller 'cause it was a big deal already. Behavior that bad is a big deal.

Wow, I apologize to Mike Hogan in a thread titled same, in the same thread I see a quote (and accurate at that) from me concerning the Miller/Peters alias fiasco from 3 years ago.... anyway, I feel confident Mike has seen my apology. David I hope so. Kickin' it just in case.

What happened was the whole thread was deleted. Bill Miller's attack on Mike was completely unacceptable. I am so glad to hear that. Thank you.

Feel free to specify any of the multitude of others Peter. The shooting of Reagan seems like Bush simply wanted to be president, as opposed to warning Reagan away from a specific policy or action. Do you think the shooting was tied to an event or policy?

Hi Myra, Part solution, you become a mod...remember there is a vacancy This way, you can have direct input into the moderation process and have the added bonus of balancing the representation with another US citizen. Furthermore this would assist in allaying the 'culturally biased' criticism when discussing culture and/or make up of moderation team. Why hurl from the ditch when you can be more greatly involved? I'm quite positive that your virtues of patience. pragmatism, and considered responses in tandem with your ideas for moderation process improvement - the whole forum would benefit from your moderation skills Gary I already posted my answer Gary, calling it "the classic thankless job." It's a difficult one in any circumstances. It's almost impossible when there is no coordination between mods so that infractions are ignored or mods are bumping into each other to respond. By the way, who are you quoting when you mention 'culturally biased' criticism? The implication is that you are quoting me, but I don't believe I've used that phrase.

The Carter thread got me wondering what episodes were actually CIA threats to the president du jour so they don't get uppity. Here are a couple of strong candidates, directly from the other thread. 1979: -Possible Transgression: April--Uppity Carter states: "We are going to have to go all the way back to the assassination of president Kennedy to get this country right." -Possible Result: May 5--10 minutes before Carter is due to speak to the Hispanic crowd on Cinco de Mayo at the civic center mall in LA, anglo Raymond Lee Harvey is arrested carrying a pistol. He tells police that he and another man (Mexican Osvaldo Ortiz) were hired to create a diversion so that Mexican hit men armed with rifles could kill Carter. Carter cancels his national TV speech & goes into seclusion at Camp David, MD. After seeking advice from a lengthy line of consultants, including Billy Graham, Carter is reported to have said, "I have lost control of the government." Carter never announces major policy changes & runs low key unsuccessful re-election campaign dominated by the October Surprise. 1994: -Possible Warning: September 12--Cessna crashes on South lawn of white house. Though the White House is reportedly rigged with surface-to-air missiles, none were fired. -Possible Reason for Warning: September 19 - October 15--Chaos in Haiti grows so bad President Clinton is forced to remove dictator Raoul Cedras. In doing so Clinton ousts, unknowingly or otherwise, the right wing CIA regime. US conservatives, such as Senator Jesse Helms, are against the intervention and criticize President Bill Clinton for engaging in unnecessary “nation building” in Haiti. Helms falsely makes the claim on the Senate floor that Aristide is “psychotic,” based on a CIA document later revealed to be a forgery.

I sure would like to know when Carter said that? Does anyone know? On edit: Ah, April. Post #59 in the Stephen's Carter thread: "So what have we got, in April, Carter hints that he might re-open the Kennedy case. He is being attacked by the media and right wingers who portray him as a "lame duck" president, his problems in the middle east only add to this picture. Carter asks for (and is given) a TV slot to reply to his critics. Those around him say he is going to announce major policy changes, and that he plans a fight back against the Reaganites.On the day before his appearance one Ray lee Harvey is arrested armed with a pistol and lots of blank ammo, he is held on a charge of attempted assassination, he gives up a second man, Oswaldo Ortiz,who tells investigators that they had been hired by two Mexican hitmen to create a disturbance, allowing the Mexicans time to assassinate Carter. When Police search the Hotel room of one Umberto Camacho they find a rifle case, and three live rounds, the would be assassins however have disappeared into the ether. Nothing further is known about either the Mexicans, or the fate of Harvey & Ortiz. Meanwhile Carter calmly goes down without a fight..." To put it in context: 1979, March 29--HSCA issues final report & concludes that JFK was assassinated by Oswald, probably as a result of a conspiracy. So April '79 Carter mentions JFK and May '79 he's threatened by neo-Oswalds. On edit (again): Duke Lane had some good info in the other thread, particularly the links: http://archive.alienzoo.com/conspiracytheo...assination.html http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/tvncust-login...;RegType=Search "See AlienZoo Conspiracy Theory for more info in an account by Jim Marrs. A synopsis: Raymond Lee Harvey was a "grubby transient" who the SS noticed "acting nervous" as Carter's appearance was approaching. They were found to have a .22-cal 8-shot revolver and 60 rounds of blank ammunition, a "cap gun" in other words. A Secret Service spokesman called it "as nothing as these things get." Apparently, Harvey fingered 21-year-old Osvaldo Espinoza-Ortiz as a "co-conspirator," the two of them "local street people" supposedly hired by a couple of Mexican "hit men" to create a diversion while the Mexicans killed Carter. They took authorities to a nearby hotel where they found an empty rifle case and three(!) rounds of live ammo. The room was rented under the name of Umberto Camacho, who had checked out on the day of the Carter visit. Elsewhere on the net, in the Vanderbilt Television News Archives, we find that Walter Cronkite devoted two full minutes to this episode on May 11, six days after it occurred. On May 29, Cronkite gave it another 20 seconds' coverage noting that a federal prosecutor in Louisiana was seeking dismissal of the charges against the pair due to "insufficient evidence." Does anyone know of other news archives like the Vanderbilt one?

************************************************************ "What did that crazy colonial rebel say appx. 230 years ago? Something about "Give me liberty or...."?" "...or give me a locked topic that I'm still able to view, and after having reviewed the content of the thread, can draw my own conclusions as to why it was, in effect, subjected to "locked" status in the first place." You might then be given a choice of addressing it with all of the moderators, or those who took part in the consensus of making the decision to lock it. You could then state your case as to the merits of re-opening the topic, and why you believe you might possibly have some constructive information to offer or impart, as a way of keeping it on track, above the level of flame-war status, and could possibly guarantee it not be allowed to degenerate to the level of contention that warranted its being relegated to "locked" status. You might even be able to view the "locked" status of a topic as a sort of "chill out" period, or what is it that parents require of their squabbling children, instead of having to slap the hell out of them, "T," for TIME OUT? A helluva lot of good that would have done my old lady. We never would've even heard her had it not been for the flying slippers, dish-rags, and assorted items that could never really have caused damage to the house itself, per se, but sure in hell stung when it hit its target. Got our attention REAL fast. Good input Terry.

I've long wondered if that operation was sabatogued. Oh, and kick.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=4667&st=60 Stephen Turner Aug 12 2005, 12:22 PM Post #1 "Taken from Conspiracy Nation, by Dave Emory. One thing I really noted it got little publicity, but he (Carter) said, We are going to have to go all the way back to the assassination (JFK) to get this country right. No sooner was Carter doing that than in May, summer of 1979, on a trip to L A there was an aborted attempt on the Presidents life. Two gunmen who had come up from Mexico named, Ray Lee Harvey, and Oswaldo Ortiz (Love the names were arrested for stalking Carter with a rifle,then they just disappeared, fell of the radar screen, no follow up on the prosecution or anything. I suspect a message was being sent to Carter."Anybody got any more on this, or is it B/S..Steve." It's a subject I'd wanted more info on. So I saved it.

"savaged'? "mercilessly"? I think we are seeing a bit of escalation here that might not be all to the good. From what I saw, Hogan began the campaign with a swipe at Miller that was personal, off-topic, and entirely gratuitous. It was completely irrelevant to anything of substance in the JFK inquiry. Miller responded to this sneak attack with a solid punch in return. Have I missed anything important? Yes J. Ray. You missed the high road. You've also accused the mods of standing down, kind of like President Kennedy's secret service, when someone you deem worthy of attack is trashed. At this point I would defend the mods, if I felt they deserved defending.

Beats the heck outta me Miles. I reported that thread too and was told the following: "Threats are not in line with Forum policy nor with the respect we should have toward each other. I have not had a chance to read this entire thread, but the quote you provide does not include a direct threat in my opinion. However the reference to whatever event of "Mike's" that "Bill" referred to was probably not necessary." Quote/unquote. For the first time in my life I had no response. Oh, I should add that less than helpful moderator reply took a full two days to receive. For some reason... (?) some mods will put up with anything from some people and almost nothing from others. This is not the first time I've opined thusly and openly. Now that you've complained thusly and openly Miles don't be surprised if you're one of the people that is not looked upon with favor by some mods. Since the subject has turned to mods, I'll say that IMO what they should be doing is preventing members from making personal verbal attacks on other members. That's exactly what I saw Kathy Beckett doing in the thread where Bernice, for some bizarre reason, was attacked. Then Kathy was decent enough to discuss her decision in another thread on the subject of moderating. So it appears that she was criticized for doing exactly what she should be doing. The classic thankless job...

Beats the heck outta me Miles. I reported that thread too and was told the following: "Threats are not in line with Forum policy nor with the respect we should have toward each other. I have not had a chance to read this entire thread, but the quote you provide does not include a direct threat in my opinion. However the reference to whatever event of "Mike's" that "Bill" referred to was probably not necessary." Quote/unquote. For the first time in my life I had no response. Oh, I should add that less than helpful moderator reply took a full two days to receive. For some reason... (?) some mods will put up with anything from some people and almost nothing from others. This is not the first time I've opined thusly and openly. Now that you've complained thusly and openly Miles don't be surprised if you're one of the people that is not looked upon with favor by some mods.

And corrupt enough to wink at conspirators.

Michael, IMO, is one of the most fair-minded, thoughtful, well-read and generally intelligent members of the forum. A true independent spirit. It has surprised and saddened me on occasion to see him attacked by other good people. I'm glad this thread provides me with an opportunity to say so, on the record. Nicely and accurately said Sid.

Thank you Herb, those are both new to me. I have a lot to read now... Found the following passage at: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKquintero.htm "In 1966 Ted Shackley was placed in charge of the CIA secret war in Laos. He appointed Thomas G. Clines as his deputy. He also took Rafael Quintero, Carl E. Jenkins, David Sanchez Morales, Rafael Quintero, Rafael Villaverde, Felix I. Rodriguez and Edwin Wilson with him to Laos. According to Joel Bainerman (Crimes of a President) it was at this point that Shackley and his "Secret Team" became involved in the drug trade. They did this via General Vang Pao, the leader of the anti-communist forces in Laos. Vang Pao was a major figure in the opium trade in Laos. To help him Shackley used his CIA officials and assets to sabotage the competitors. Eventually Vang Pao had a monopoly over the country's heroin trade. In 1967 Shackley and Clines helped Vang Pao to obtain financial backing to form his own airline, Zieng Khouang Air Transport Company, to transport opium and heroin between Long Tieng and Vientiane." I don't know how significant this is. On the one hand it's the CIA group full of the prime suspects, perhaps not directly involved in drug running until years after the assassination. On the other hand the drug trade in the golden triangle region could still have been a significant factor with other factions in the military industrial you know what.

Thank you John for correcting the misinformation about the petition. I did not realize that ipetition asked for donations until after I set up the petition with them and began receiving emails about it. I have since closed the petition with them. I did download the signatures and comments which will be sent to HBO/Playtone as stated. Additionally, JFK Lancer does not badger people for donations. I am sorry if that is someone's view of Lancer from something you have heard from somewhere. We sell research materials and hold the annual conference so we can be self-supporting. If I could do it all for free, that would be great, but it is not reality. However, THERE IS NO PROFIT AND NO SALARY PAID. This is well-known and anyone who claims differently is purposely doing so. The point is to make enough to keep the work alive -- the point is to be able to do this work at all! The point is to get the information out in the best format possible. We do accept donations for the Student-Teacher Scholarship program. These funds are used for the scholarship itself, travel expenses for the winners, and for donations of materials to teachers throughout the year. I am thrilled to have the support of the research community in the scholarship program. Debra Conway JFK Lancer is a great resource. Publisher of "Someone Would Have Talked" no less. Thanks Debra. Myra

Right on the money, John. The hidden costs of prohibition are enormous. Just the legal costs are staggering, when you consider the court costs, as you mentioned, which involve a vast investment of police resources, lawyers and judges to process the 'criminals' through the system, and the costs involved in keeping these people in jail. A few years ago, the NSW statistician Don Weatherburn estimated the cost of prohibition to the NSW taxpayer to be in the order of $7 billion per annum. It's no wonder the poor saps here get taxed and fined every time they stick their heads up--and yet the State Government is permanently broke. I'll try to dig up the Weatherburn article (which was buried at the bottom of one of the middle pages of the newspaper) and post it on the prohibition thread, although stories like this are shunned by the media and can be hard to find in the archives. When it comes to America, you can multiply the costs mentioned here by a factor of 20. The other things you mention are also right on the money. The shooting gallery here in Kings Cross, an anathema to conservative windbags with limited experience of real life, has caused assaults and robberies to plummet. Junkies get their shots for free in a discreet clinical environment (it costs something in the order of ten cents apiece), so they are not breaking into cars and houses, assaulting innocent people or leaving used syringes in parks or on beaches where children can step on them. The problem is that there are now so many vested interests which depend upon prohibition for their living that it has almost become a pillar supporting the economy. When Bob Carr first proposed the shooting gallery, the Police Union informed him that they would campaign against him in marginal seats. A lower crime rate is very bad for a police force determined to bolster its numbers. In the US, the California prison officers union (reportedly with the largest union membership in the world) campaigns actively against anyone proposing a change to the status quo. Here in Australia, the Salvation Army, whom I used to greatly respect, issues stern denunciations of any attempt to change the laws. However what they fail to mention is that they are paid between $800 and $1000 dollars by the Federal Government for every addict they place on their program (which apparently consists mainly of counselling and has an unimpressive success rate). The media also lives off prohibition. Plummeting crime rates and the absence of spectacular drug busts are a news editor's worst nightmare. Scandals involving sportpeople who have tested positive for banned substances are emblazened across newspapers. The media doesn't like the three strikes policy of some sporting bodies--it wants offenders named and shamed immediately and has even begun litigation in some instances to override those sporting bodies. The DEA, eagerly cheered on by the media, constantly attempts to widen the list of banned substances. The most absurd recent example is the effort to force the AFL to include cannabis as a performance enhancing substance, in conjunction with changing their three strike policy into a one strike (name and shame) policy. Pressure from the DEA forced Aussie PM John Howard to threaten the AFL's funding if they did not comply. So far, the AFL has held firm, responding with the perfectly logical argument of who uses cannabis to enhance sporting performance? Equally ridiculous, the DEA is pushing for a testing regime which detects metabolytes--compounds which attach to the fat cells and take months to leave the body--as opposed to a testing regime which solely detects intoxication from the drug. Therefore, if a player attends a party months after the season has ended and passively inhales smoke from a nearby cannabis user, his or her career can be terminated in the most humiliating and shameful manner. That's how insidious this issue is. When it's all said and done, it's not a crime--it's a vice. Unlike a robbery or assault, where there is an aggrieved party, the consumption of all consciousness altering substances, from alcohol to ecstacy, is voluntary. There's no aggrieved party. That's why the Volstead Act required an amendment to the US Constitution in order to change the consumption of alcohol from a vice to a crime. Of course, the noble experiment showed how dangerous a substance becomes when its production and distribution is handed over to the underworld (in addition to the massive corruption it causes). It looks like the powers that be want to keep repeating failed experiments ad nauseam. Sorry, Myra---I did it again. No no, this is totally on-topic big-picture Mark. Understanding why the military industrial complex wants to perpetuate social ills--war, drug arrests, drug addiction, overcrowded prisons, uninsured medical patients, etc.--is essential to understanding why they target those striving to eliminate the social ills.

And makes more criminals which makes more prisoners which gives industry more slave labor.

I finished reading Prouty's JFK book about a month ago David. I think a lot of Prouty and it had a lot of interest. The image of piled up arms sitting outside Japan earmarked for Korea and Vietnam is pretty chilling, knowing that it was a business decision already made. Though I don't think he successfully explained why Asia was targeted and why Korea and Vietnam were targeted within Asia. He repeatedly asked the question "why Indochina?" and implied he'd answer it but to my recollection he never actually did. He made clear that the military industrial complex wanted a profitable war but didn't tie it in with drugs, which seems to explain the location of the wars. Poppies, opium, golden triangle. Regardless, it was a totally worthwhile book. He sure put the pentagon papers in perspective for me.

That sounds like an interesting one, discussing the inter-agency fix. Thanks Nathaniel.

Actually I thought you made a really good point about the gov't declining to legalize drugs thereby eliminating their profit from the illegal ones Mark. Besides, if people aren't mad about the real government they aren't paying attention.

Is there a more compelling, complex character in this story -- including LHO? A man of extraordinary courage and significant intellect ... a man of color ... a descendant of the oppressed ... twisted by and taking orders from his Caucasian masters as far back as high school. Do not misread me. One needn't be a person's "fan" to appreciate greatness -- even when it is placed in service to the dark side. I do not know of a more disheartening example of the Stockholm Syndrome than DSM advocating for his captors -- those who ultimately became his killers. Who talent-spotted this guy? How did he enter the secret world? Too many gaps, too many counter-intuitions in this story. The widow Morales was said to have lived in Boston for a time. What tales might his family have to tell? Any notion of their whereabouts? Where do we find such men? Charles Charles Thanks to the CIA sociopaths no longer have to be outcasts. They are gainfully employed in government; our tax dollars in action.