Myra Bronstein

...

The weapon used by or planted upon John Hinckley when he shot Reagan was bought on Elm Street in Dallas. These names above are not simply coincidental. I think their names and the choice of Elm street to buy Hinckley's weapon is an indication that a message is being sent out.

John

Ohmygod, good catch John.

I didn't know that.

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members. It was an unmitigated act of cruelty by Miller which renders the witnessing mods to a position of clearly scarred conscience. I tried to point out this outrage of decency to the mods & John, but I found that they deleted my protest.

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.

I'd like to extend an apology to Michael Hogan, a member of this forum. On more than one occasion I said unkind things to him and about him. I was wrong!

David G. Healy

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.

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members. It was an unmitigated act of cruelty by Miller which renders the witnessing mods to a position of clearly scarred conscience. I tried to point out this outrage of decency to the mods & John, but I found that they deleted my protest.

What, in God's name, is going on?

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.

I'd 'grade' this 'exam' 100%...add the multitude of others...such as shooting of Reagan and so many others....Kennedy was killed, among other reasons, because he thought he was and dared to act as if 'President' of those who elected him, and not under direct control of certain string-pullers. These efforts to control Presidents goes back to the 'founding fathers' however. The Oligarchy has never wanted real democracy and rule of law, separtation of powers et al...only the appearance of same.

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?

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.

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.

...(Carter) said, We are going to have to go all the way back to the assassination (JFK) to get this country right.

...

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?

In that I have participated in "very few" internet forums, I am somewhat at a loss regarding the verbage.

Is the difference between "locking" a topic and "deleting" a topic in any way comparable to the difference between "banning" books and "Burning" books?

I did not follow the topic in question so I really have no involvement in other than what I consider "acceptable procedure".

Is there a list of topics that are banned? Where is it located ? How would one be allowed for example to ban my ideas and yet say that I am still a forum citizen? I feel that deletion of written material, is not at all unlike burning it, and is a quite serious affront to ones "human" rights.

Self deleting a topic as a result of the use of or the threat of the use of force by another party, seems to root itself in the dark ages. I can understand censorship of what may generally be accepted as foul language, to protect members of the forum who have the "right" to not be subjected to this.

In my opinion, deletion of a topic is not that different than deletion of an individual. If a person is not basically the sum of his thoughts and beliefs....what then is he ?

I realize that this forum does not masquerade as a "democracy", but judges here (the moderators), who have never been accepted as qualified by those whom they are moderating, seems unlike any organization, other than the Army, with which I have ever been associated. Even clubs and fraternal organizations have the privilege of choosing someone such as a "seargent of arms" who is acceptable to at least the majority.

As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the topic in question or even care to.

I am strongly opposed to censorship based only on the popularity or acceptance of a given opinion, which is based solely on another's given opinion.

How is this form of "moderation" kept from becoming censorship of ideas....who has the right to censor my or anyones ideas? The "proprietor" of this forum has the right to accept or reject members, But the rejection of a MEMBERS ideas, yet allowing someone to remain a member, is a travesty. It is telling someone that you can be a member of my debating team, but you will not be allowed to speak !

In my dictionary, moderation is not synonymous with coerced control!

Who needs this type of abuse while engaging in a function that is supposed to be both pleasureable and stimulating ?

Either I have completely missed the boat, or this is an definite attempt to supress the expression of personal thought. National Security secrets are not being exposed. Only thoughts that the societies from which we all derive deem acceptable, are in question here ! WHY ?

I am not preaching "Anarchy"....but I see no way that the terms moderator and supressor can in any way be linked.

What did that crazy colonial rebel say appx. 230 years ago? Something about "Give me liberty or...."?

Charles Black

************************************************************

"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.

...

What happened to Carter's plan? The helicopters crashed in the

desert.

...

I've long wondered if that operation was sabatogued.

Oh, and kick.

In May 1979 two men were arrested in Los Angeles while President Jimmy Carter was visiting there in an alleged assassination attempt on Carter.

One was an Anglo and the other an Hispanic.

The Anglo, upon being arrested, was found to have a starter pistol on his person with 70 rounds of blank ammunition. The Anglo identified the Hispanic as his co-conspirator. Both men led the authorities to a hotel where the men, who were street people, claimed that they were recruited by three men from Mexico. The role of the two men was to create a diversion while the three men from Mexico assassinated Carter.

Within hours of the incident Carter cancelled a planned national television appearance that had been previously announced, which was never rescheduled.

The above incident is recounted by Jim Marrs in an interview this week for subscribers on www.dreamland.com.

Marrs noted that the names of the two men arrested were Raymond Lee Harvey and Oswaldo Artiz.

According to Marrs, after the incident, Carter evolved into a do-nothing president, apparently having come to the realization that the country was really run by a selected group of men and that being President of the United States meant he had power inferior to that exercised by the selected group.

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.

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members.

"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.

Hear, Oh Hear!

I again concur with fervour. I am relatively new to the forum, but appreciated & profited from Mike's helpful posts for newbies (me) with the feeling that he was helping me personally with gentleness & kindness, although that was surely over reaching on my part.

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members. It was an unmitigated act of cruelty by Miller which renders the witnessing mods to a position of clearly scarred conscience. I tried to point out this outrage of decency to the mods & John, but I found that they deleted my protest.

What, in God's name, is going on?

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...

Hear, Oh Hear!

I again concur with fervour. I am relatively new to the forum, but appreciated & profited from Mike's helpful posts for newbies (me) with the feeling that he was helping me personally with gentleness & kindness, although that was surely over reaching on my part.

Still, to see him mercilessly savaged & degraded recently on the forum by Miller was a sad & painful event for all forum members. It was an unmitigated act of cruelty by Miller which renders the witnessing mods to a position of clearly scarred conscience. I tried to point out this outrage of decency to the mods & John, but I found that they deleted my protest.

What, in God's name, is going on?

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.

...

Albert Thomas is old enough to dream dreams, and young enough to see visions.

...

And corrupt enough to wink at conspirators.

I'd like to extend an apology to Michael Hogan, a member of this forum. On more than one occasion I said unkind things to him and about him. I was wrong!

David G. Healy

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.

Myra,

There are two other related books which I found fascinating... "Contrabandista" by Evert Clark and Nicholas Harrock and "The Great Heroin Coup" by Henrik Kruger. Both are hard to get, but worth the effort. Both also have a lot of information regarding the purported Corsicans involved in the JFK Assasssination.

Herb

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.

David,

As Michael says, read my previous post. By getting to the donation page you have already regitered your signature. The suggested donation is for the ipetition website to keep it going, as it is a free service. You do NOT have to pay to sign the petition. If you check the list if signatures you will see yours there.

237 David Healy The time and money would be better spent creating a International Political Assassination Studies Group.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/jfklancer/signatures.html

Lancer gets no money from this petition

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

Mark, you raise a very good issue IMO.

Not only does criminalizing consenting adult private drug use support the drug trade, it also drives the problem underground and because of the tampering with drugs endanger the users and make them less likely to have easy access to speedy overdose responses and to rehab opportunities.

At the same time, the addiction to hard drugs and the drug trade accounts for a massive portion of crime to support said habits.

The solution is simple: registered, stigma free atmosphere, drug addicts with a guaranteed cost controlled quality sanctioned supply with accompanying exposure to treatment options.

Clean 'shooting galleries', and readily available counseling.

The ramifications to society would be enormous, with a dramatic drop in crime rates to supply money for illicit drug purchases.

The persons involved and their familes and friends would have access to support, and the police freed to deal with 'real' crimes.

Jail costs, court costs, and all attendant costs to society can be better spent.

The only looser would be the illegal drug trade as it is.

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.

Mark, you raise a very good issue IMO.

Not only does criminalizing consenting adult private drug use support the drug trade, it also drives the problem underground...

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

I would add further reading to your list Myra (sorry) and include here Fletcher Prouty's JFK book. Prouty wrote something very important (in my view) about Vietnam and Korea in his book, namely that at the end of WWII the US war surplus arms were split 50/50 and sent to Korea and Vietnam. I couldn't help but wonder, when reading this, that Flecther was telling us all something very important (he was!) and that was simply that the Korean war and the Vietnam war were already plannned by the end of WWII. When you read a few other little gems dropped into his book, this interpretation begins to clarify.

...

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.

Myra -- I also recomend Douglass Valentine's Book The Stregnth of The Wolf. It shows how the Federal Bureau of narcotics could be told to lay off by the CIA, in terms of allowing drugs into the US. He is coming out with a new book

covering roughly 1971-to the present later this year.

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

It's a very plausible idea, imo, given that the banking system finances wars just like they back any investment which will return a profit. I still haven't discarded the theory that the Fed was somehow mixed up in JFK's demise, either. It's in my 'do not discard this theory' file.

Myra, sorry if my earlier post looked like a thread hijack--as well as a passable rendition of a raving lunatic. The prohibition issue gets me steamed, mainly because of the unnecessary damage it does to society, chiefly those at the lower end of society.

Good luck with those books. A very worthwhile investment of time.

p.s. I have at least ten of interest I've yet to read. There's no time.

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.

Morales had quite dark skin.

This is him below on the right during a basketball game.

James

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.

So, does anyone think it's actually Ruby and Dulles?

Opinions?

No way.

I say no way on "Ruby" and very unlikely on "Dulles."