Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
I'm another non-American who doesn't see what the fuss is about. Even so, I'm unsure why this issue keeps on getting raised.
There seems to be a birth certificate:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg
There seems to be the original record:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/1961_Hawaii_Certificate_Of_Live_Birth.jpg
So what is the problem?
Evan,
The first image you linked is to his "Certification of Live Birth" -- THIS IS NOT the same thing as a Birth Certificate. It isn't a technicality either. It's not the same. My understanding is that you can't even get a Passport by presenting a COLB--it is NOT the same thing. I can't really tell you what a COLB is for--but it has limited utility. The second image to which you linked is a Certificate of Birth, but all identifying information is redacted! Unless I missed something, it is of no use at all. It even says both parents are caucasion, too!
Like I said, this is probably a non-issue, but I don't see what's so hard about providing PROOF. Even if I didn't have a copy of my own original, I highly doubt it would be this difficult to get one. My wife's was misplaced/lost a few years ago. She sent to the State of New York because we needed a passport. They promptly provided one. It was NOT a "Certification of Live Birth" either, it was a duplicate Birth Certificate.
-
I forgot to mention the funniest part of the article, the guy said "In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state."
And just what are his “professional” qualifications? He is “a graduate assistant who teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky” and for a few months in 2008 was “a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu” which despite its august title was a temporary position. Note that he he worked for a municipal not the state elections office.
Greg I think this is silly. How many people can turn up their ORIGINAL birth certificate? The best I can do is some low resolution photocopies that I found among my father`s papers. I asked for new copies from the town clerk years ago when I applied for a business visa and it wasn’t that different from Obama’s COLB i.e.it had much less info than the original.
The state of Hawaii already certified Obama’s COLB and the state’s health director said she and another official verified the birth record. It gives his time of birth to the minute Aug 4 7:26 PM that was a Friday it was registered the next Tuesday. Additionally birth announcements appeared in 2 different newspapers in mid August. And as even WND, the right wing kook site cited by Jack, acknowledged the papers got their info from the state health department. FWIW a teacher reported she spoke to the obstatician who delivered Obama about his birth a few days after the fact.
So I’m not sure what you mean by “absolute proof” if the word of the head of the state`s health department (presumably a Republican like the Governor) isn’t good enough what would a piece of paper issued by her department prove?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Len,
I tend to agree that this is probably no longer a real issue and maybe never was. I personally think he was born here. I just found the process to confirm it to be more awkward thn necessary. Apparently, however, fact check.org personally handled the original Birth Certificate (different from a COLB) which they said is (was) located at his headquarters in Chicago.
-
As a non-American, I must admit to being slightly mystified by all the fuss about whether Obama was born in the US or not.
I have no opinion either way on the veracity of his place of birth. I just can't see why it matters. Granted, I'm making the assumption that the US Constitution says that a president must have been born in America. If so, it smacks of constitutionalized racism to me (I'm not referring to the colour of his skin here, just the issue of whether he was born in America). Does it really matter? I care little about where my Prime Minister was born. I do care about what he can do to drag my country out of the seemingly endless mire we're in. To be frank, if the person capable of rescuing my country was a Little-Green-Man from Mars, then sign me up to the Little-Green-Men party. Maybe it's something to do with being English, which by definition means mixed race. The puzzling thing is, I thought you Yanks (sic) were of more mixed race than we Brits? So why the xenophobia when it comes to the nationality of your leader? If a foreigner is good enough to be governor of California, why not president? (Please don't get side-tracked into whether the Governator himself is suitable president material!)
Puzzled!
Hi Dave,
I appreciate your comments. IMO: the central issue here is two-fold. The first is technical, but could have huge consequences. The second is ethical.
First, because the Constitution requires that an individual who would be POTUS be born in the USA, then anyone occupying that office who does not comply with same is usurping the authority granted to the office by the Constitution because they are ineligible to legitimately lay a claim thereto. If it were to be proven that a sitting president was ineligible, even if only for a technicality, the United States would face a Constitutional Crisis. This is no small matter. If Obama was not born here, I would have preferred to find out BEFORE he was elected. He still may have been our best choice (or not) but it can completely unwind the effectiveness of his administration. If, for instance, JFK had not been born here, and it became known to his political rivals while he was in office, he could have been removed or rendered impotent without assassination.
Second, if Obama was not born here (an easy thing to disprove, if false) and became POTUS without disclosing the true location of his birth, then he is in violation of several well established practices, some of which include ethical considerations. Moreover, his having been an expert in Constitutional Law underscores the potential egregiousness of the offense.
Now, perhaps he was born in Hawaii. If so, no problem. But, why not produce the absolute PROOF if that's the case? It is SO damn easy to do!
-
Len,
I voted for Obama in spite of what I reported above. However, I believe that I (or anyone) should be able to acquire a COPY of a document that PROVES the President was, in fact, born in the United States as is required by the US Constitution for him to be eligible for the office. If, however, the Health Department insists on being anally retentive about the rules as listed on their own website, then I understand why (although it doesn't apply here) they still would refuse to send a copy of the actual document. However, in the spirit of consistency, they should adhere to ALL of their rules and procedures and supply an Official Letter of Verification that such a document exists (Birth Certificate) and confirm the pertinent information.
Why not? I can't think of any good reason to refuse to supply PROOF. They would really only need to do it once and this would be over. That they have failed to do it so far, is suspect.
So this Clinton-McCain supporter supposedly was told in the spring-summer of 2008 by his unnamed supervisor at the electtion office Obama was NOT born in Hawaii but waited till nearly 2 years after the election to say anything.The it turns out that the head of the office said "We don't have access to that kind of records. [There's] no access to birth records." What the (after) Birthers have yet to explain is why, if their claims were true, none of Obama`s rivals for the nomination or in the general election tried to use it. Even the Republican governor of the state says this is nonsense.
-
I'm still waiting to see if Jack can defend his claims.
Greg,
Please do check out Jack's claims because I think you'll find that they do not stand up to scrutiny. Please let us know the results. Thanks!
Evan,
Before I check out Jack's claims, I have to find time to check out my own! I have done some preliminary checking, but the conditions weren't adequate to make a final call. Stand-by...
-
Jack,
I don't know if you remember this or not, but during the campaign I researched the methods by which one could obtain either a copy of a vital document or a VERIFICATION of the existence of same in lieu of a copy of the actual document itself from the Department of Health. For purposes allegedly associated with privacy, namely the prevention of Identity Theft, the department will not supply a copy of the document unless the person requesting the document is the person to whom the document refers, or in some cases, a family member. However, when they can't send the document they will instead send an official Letter of Verification. This letter verifies that an official of the Department has personally CONFIRMED the existence of the document. I believe the charge for such a letter was $35.00 -- This procedure was spelled out on their website.
[Note: First of all, the odds of anyone "stealing" President (then Senator) Obama's identity was virtually non-existent. It is and was idiotic to claim otherwise. So, the "intent of the law" (protecting his privacy) had already been met by the CONDITIONS of this unique situation and therefore adhering to the "letter of the law" was unnecessary and counter-intuitive to its original purpose. But, I assumed they might just be sticklers about the policy/law and wouldn't budge even under these rather extraordinary circumstances.]
So...rather than request a copy of the document itself, I proceeded to employ the method they themselves have in place to secure a Letter of Verification that his actual Birth Certificate (hospital vault original) existed. I wrote a nice short letter to the Hawaiian Health Department's office of vital records stating what I was requesting and I even "quoted the procedure" from their own website in the letter. I gave them all of my contact information, phone numbers, email, physical address, and enclosed a MONEY ORDER for the full amount and a self addressed stamped return envelope for their convenience. I then made a copy of everything before mailing it Certified Return Receipt Requested. They received it as I have the receipt, but I never heard a word from them. A few weeks went by...then I called the Department of Health and spoke with an individual who was sympathetic, but not able to help. I spoke to a supervisor who said something to the effect of: "We've all been instructed to ignore such requests concerning Mr. Obama's birth records." I asked, "Why aren't you processing a verification letter as per your own website's instructions?" She re-iterated that they had been instructed to ignore all such requests. I couldn't believe it! I asked for them to send my uncashed money order back and she said, "I'm sorry, we don't do that either."
Quite disturbing.
-
Admins:
There is a feature available in the software that will allow a member to DELETE their own post. It works much like the EDIT button that allows a member to edit their own post. Sometimes multiple duplicate messages can inadvertantly be posted as the result of several factors. The result is unnecessarily "written in stone" when the delete feature could be enabled, IMO. There is very little risk of abuse. We always enabled the "delete" button at JFKresearch Forum and encountered no problems from doing so. FWIW.
-
I don't appreciate the condescending attitude, Craig. I do appreciate the examples offered by others here--especially Dave Greer's pictures taken in the snow. The railroad tracks, however, were of no help.
Wow you write that after this:
ROFLMFAO!!! You are hysterically funny, Craig! I had no idea you had such a capacity for humor. Thanks so much for the levity. It is true that your example lacks intellectual honesty and you know it.
Pot meet Kettle.
I quite patiently explained to you why your "common sense" was not correct, offered you a solid example of how things worked and gave you the means to test it yourself. Heck all you have to do is walk aout your door and view a road or sidewalk to see the principle action.
I even went so far as to furnish you with a photograph to illustrate the point.
In return I get your remark, made in complete ignorance of the subject matter, that my post lacked intellectual honesty.
Quite frankly Greg, you current complaint rings a bit hollow.
Look Craig, you may be correct about the shadows. I will do my own observations and report my findings. If I was in error I will admit it. I have nothing to defend here. You and I have gone "round and round" years ago--and it wasn't pleasant for either of us. Perhaps we can get to a more constructive place this time. I hope so.
-
I will attempt to reproduce the anomaly myself. If I can, then it's probably not an anomaly at all. Like I said from the beginning, it seemed odd to me, but I didn't claim to know what it means. Perhaps it will turn out to be nothing.
I don't appreciate the condescending attitude, Craig. I do appreciate the examples offered by others here--especially Dave Greer's pictures taken in the snow. The railroad tracks, however, were of no help.
-
I'm glad you found it amusing, too bad you don't understand it.
But hey lets give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain in detail why the example fails.
I'm always up for a good laugh too!
Most optical illusions are the result of 1) incongruent design elements at opposite ends of parallel lines, 2) influence of background patterns on the overall design, 3) adjustment of our perception at the boundaries of areas of high contrast, 4) afterimages resulting from eye movements or from kinetic displays, or 5) inability to interpret the spatial structure of an object from the context provided by the picture.
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/graphics/
You seem to be committing multiple errors based mostly on #1 above. The picture you posted shows no discernible vectors established by a light source resulting in "shadows" -- indeed there are no shadows of virtue visible at all!
Nice try, but, as usual, no dice--
-
I'll even help you get started. Here is photo of a dirt road in Colorado I took recently. The edges of the road are parallel for the most part. Did they render as parallel in the photo or do they remind you of the shadows in the Apollo photos?
ROFLMFAO!!! You are hysterically funny, Craig! I had no idea you had such a capacity for humor. Thanks so much for the levity. It is true that your example lacks intellectual honesty and you know it.
EOM
-
The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.
Just curious, why do you believe shadows depicted in photos should be parallel?
Common sense.
However, I don't claim that shadows should be parallel in ALL photos. Just in photos where the objects casting shadows presumably share the SAME light source--and that source is THE SUN.
If the shadows that are cast from both objects (the photographer/astronaut and the Flag Pole) share the same light source then the shadows should be parallel--unless the proximity of the light source is relatively close, measurably skewed, or BETWEEN the objects. Note that the proximity of the light source to the target(s) rules that effect.
In the case of the alleged lunar photos, the light source is presumably the sun which is neither "close" nor is it "in between" the objects casting shadows. Therefore, any differential in angle between the two shadows SHOULD be highly MINIMIZED--but it is not. It is pronounced.
It appears that there is a separate light source for the object in the foreground (the astronaut/photographer) and another for the object in the background (flag). The astronaut seems to be "back lit" casting a shadow to his immediate front, while the Flag Pole seems to have a shadow cast from a different light source (off to our right POV in the two photos on the left) and the shadow cast from the "solar umbrella" (photo on right) comes from the opposite direction. The point is clear: the ANGLE of the shadow cast by the photographer SHOULD be parallel to that of the shadow cast by the other objects in the photo if the ONLY light source is the SUN.
This anomaly is seen in several photos. I don't claim to know what this means. But, it does seem odd.
-
The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.
-
Criticism of Israel and Jews should not be prohibited when and if they commit illegal or immoral acts.
Strawman -- I never suggested any prohibition on criticism of anyone.
Israel/Jews are not above civil and moral laws.Did anyone suggest otherwise? Not I.
Giving them a free pass on ALL THINGS is absurd.Has anyone suggested they get a "free pass" on anyhting? Not I.
They are neither superior nor inferior to other groups.Agreed, but why even mention the obvious, if it is, in fact, obvious?
A major problem is that Jews control a disproportionate amount of wealth.I beg your pardon? What the hell are you talking about? Oh my Lord!!!
Wealth means control.So, I guess "logically" since Jews have a disproportionately high percentage of control--then a disproportionately high amount of problems should be attributed to them? But then, everything good should also be disproportionately credited to them, as well. See the absurdity?
The above statements are not anti-semitic, but realistic observations.Jack
-
You are someone who would greatly benefit from reading STRANGER THAN FICTION.
I recommend it. Lifton has no idea what he is talking about either with regard to 9/11
or the history of Zionism and the creation of Israel. You need to do more study, too,
my friend. I hate to say it, but you are endorsing potted history removed from reality.
The Palestinians are Semites, too, by the way. The distinction is rooted in language.
Do you also claim that this assault on the Freedom Flotilla was Israel defending itself?
Are you kidding me right now?
I said: "Anti-Jews are not the same as anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a mis-nomer for anti-Jew."
So how does that differ from your position?
Don't start with ME, my friend!!!
-
If I understand your explanation, the Palestinians had their chance at a homeland as well and resented the establishment of Israel where they hoped to establish theirs.
Walt, that is partly correct and partly incorrect. The "Palestinians" did have their chance at sovereignty and failed to sieze it for LACK OF EFFORT. It was their's for the "declaring" --which they declined to do. However, it is the Arab States (not necessarily the "Palestinians") who resent the existence of a Jewish State. This is one of the most important distinctions to be understood about this conflict. It really isn't "Israelis vs Palestinians" at all--and never has been! That is the "front operation" to conceal the real agenda, which is: Anti-Jews vs Jews. I know it sounds too simplistic, but--it is what it is. Anti-Jews are not the same as anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a mis-nomer for anti-Jew.
Well, that's not what I meant. I don't claim that the "Palestinians" are to blame. I think that, as "a people" they have no power because they have no cohesiveness. There are no "Palestinians" because there is no "Palestine" no matter that such a label has been assigned to non-Jewish settlers in that region. So, I don't think that they're to blame for their plight. However, their plight is not improved by any of the Arab States in the region. It is exacerbated without any mercy extended to them because they are being exploited for only one reason: the DESTRUCTION of the State of Israel.If you are correct, only they are to blame for not following suit and declaring their own state back in the 40's.Who fired the first shot has some relevance but some 62 years later there is enough blame to be shared by all sides.It has more than passing relevance. The first shot has been followed by the second, third, fourth, and fifth (plus) shots, so far.
Israel has nothing in its CHARTER calling for the destruction of Arab States. However, several Arab States have such an order/goal contained in their CHARTER. That's right, calling for "the Jews to be driven into the sea..."
Such things change the playing field considerably--as they should.
I find it sad that many Israeli actions smack of the very tactics used by the fascists who hunted them down in the 30 and 40's.I have seen no evidence of that, Walt. None. While I don't agree with every action they have taken, still none rise to that level--not by a long shot! Gas chambers? Ovens? Mass graves? -- not close...
I don't condone the Arab attacks on Israel by any means either. The United States government sees what it wants to see and often at the expense of fairness.I have yet to see Israel attack a neighbor unprovoked! Never. The closest example--was when they blew up a Nuclear facility that would be capable of producing weapons in Syria. Yet, keep in mind, Syria has a sworn CHARTER to DESTROY Israel--so I can hardly call it "unprovoked" at all!
I can see the Neocons and Zionists working together to pull off a 9/11 attack like I can see the CIA, the Pentagon and the Mafia working together to bump off JFK. I am open to any scenario that makes sense.Me too.
-
Thanks Ter -- best to you...
-
Walt has rightly drawn very astute (but, I would have hoped OBVIOUS) distinctions between Israelis and Zionists. I object to the ignorant conclusions reached by those who have not studied the HISTORY of the creation of the State of Israel--or at least appear to have studied it with less than an open mind. It still amazes me that many otherwise intelligent and well informed individuals fail to understand "who" the alleged Palestinian People really are, where they came from and how they are being exploited more by anti-Israeli parties than by Isrelis. I say, "alleged" Palestinian People because there is no antecedent for them. They originate, at once, from both nowhere and everywhere. So obfuscated is their claim to the land, that the enemies of Israel would argue that the status afforded those who are "established" as a soverieign state requires NO pre-requisites. But, that is opportunistically ridiculous on its face. I didn't make these rules, but they exist and are rather specific.
What is their "Nationality" ?? Note: I did not ask, "What is their race, religion, or creed..." -- Rather, I asked, "What is their Nationality?" This is important. For without any "nationality" they have no claim until proven. Israelis have a claim based upon RECOGNIZED citizenship of a soveriegn state. I have a claim in the United States based on my RECOGNIZED citizenship of a sovereign state.
In the 1940's ONLY Israel established sovereignty in the region even though the "Palestinians" were invited to do likewise. After WWII Britain et al had withdrawn from the region. Both Jews and Arabs were invited by the United Nations to establish individual sovereignty based upon partitioned land. This idea was REJECTED by the Arab States. The Israelis did not prevent the establishment of a Palestinian State--rather, the opportunity to establish a Palestinian state was NOT siezed upon because it was not in the interests of Israel's anti-Jewish neighbors. Why? Because, since the beginning of this conflict, Israel's neighbors have publically declared their clear intent NOT to live in peace with a Jewish State. They have declared their goal to be "driving the Jews" into the sea. This is NOT a political distinction. It is RELIGIOUS. Plain and simple.
Israel's Arab neighbors not only contribute to the plight of the Palestinians, indeed they CREATED IT, for the sole purpose of fomenting perpetual conflict in the region as a diversionary tactic to distract from their CHARTERED goal of DESTRUCTION of the Jewish State.
So, we have extremists on both sides.
Within a day or so of Israel's being recognized by the US as a sovereign state (due to the establishment of an "interim government") she was attacked by SEVERAL of her neighbors. But why? For what possible reason could this be rationlized other than anti-Jewish sentiment? There had been no declaration of a "Palestinian State" and therefore it is absurd to claim that Israel was "preventing" the formation of same and her neighbors were attempting to defend the right of the Palestinians to sovereignty. Such a claim is historically unsupported since there never was and never has there been a declaration of Palestinian Sovereignty.
-
Jack, I was being sarcastic to make a point. The above was my invention--and not real. That's why I said: "Nah..." I'll edit it to make that more clear...
-
Thank you, Monk. I've been looking forward to having a discussion with you like this for a decade...Waiting for the right subject matter.
Well, after a decade we better make it a good show...
[snip]When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa and Miami plots.[snip]
I tend to believe that no one was more in shock that Diem was assassinated than JFK. We know that a series of cables were exchanged over the weekend between the WH and Ambassador Lodge in Saigon. We know that these were "ill advised" cables since several of those in Washington, who should have been in "the loop" were away, ostensibly, for the weekend. This led, as incredibly as it may sound, to a "rough draft" actually being sent. Because these cables contained communications whose meaning could be stretched enough to be interpreted as support for an immediate coup, which was the course to which Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge was already inclined, US support for same was communicated to General Big Minh and his co-conspirators in Saigon--and it was off to the races. This is hardly evidence of JFK's complicity, JFK's acquiescence to a Harriman plan against Diem (although Harriman clearly supported such a plan on behalf of the State Department), or a JFK "order" to eliminate Diem.
As for back channel talks with Castro...I agree that JFK and Harriman both agreed same was desirable for US interests and "business" interests, respectively. I might add, same was also desirable in the eyes of Kruschev who was fighting his own battles with Soviet hard liners in his own country. If Castro and Kennedy could find a way to rapproachment Kruschev would no longer be faced with the bleak prospect of another "showdown" with the west, which could potentially force another choice between political defeat or global thermo-nuclear war.
IMO: the main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy that sought to disengage from further entanglement in Vietnam was the US Military. The main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy of seeking rapproachment with Cuba was the US Military. The coup in Vietnam, therefore, was designed to "upset" the planned withdrawal of US support from that region. IMO: it was an Operation Northwoods type action that suffered from a public relations guffaw. It was never credibly "blamed" on the North--in fact, no such credible attempt was ever made. However, had JFK survived Dallas, it would have been packaged that way. Note that as soon as JFK was dead, CUBA was no longer even a small concern for the military. It was ALL Vietnam, which was a much preferred "theater" of action than was Cuba. And LBJ was their perfect little "Pork Chop" to go along with the program.
(snip...) The 1,000 troop withdrawal at the end of '63 would have given the Republicans a campaign issue in '64 -- it was never going to happen -- but it was a bargaining chip to set the end of '65 date in stone in exchange for Kennedy going along with the Diem coup. (emphasis mine)But, IT DID HAPPEN! The first 1,000 troops that JFK ordered out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 were, in fact, withdrawn. This was AFTER LBJ had signed NSAM 273--the 1,000 were STILL withdrawn.
In short: Kennedy made a political trade with the State Department foreign policy establishment so they got their damn coup and Kennedy got NSAM 263 and a withdrawal time-table as official US policy.I disagree. I think this is backwards from the way that things actually work. I don't see the State Department as cynically as others do, perhaps. The Secretry of State "serves at the pleasure" of the POTUS. Unlike many of the "old guard" in the Intelligence Community (DULLES, BISSEL, ANGLETON--even HOOVER), who were all "in place" before JFK took office, the Cabinet members, including Rusk at State and Bobby in the Justice Department, were selected because they were his own personal preferences. JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963).
Harriman got his way with the over-throw of the Ngo brothers. Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, and Harriman feared Diem would ask the Americans out because that was something Kennedy would have accepted, Buddhist repression be damned.I agree with this part. But even though Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, again: JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963). So, there was NO NEED to assassinate Diem since JFK had already enacted the policy BEFORE Diem requested it!
Moreover, I am not convinced that this "evidence" proves that JFK ordered, approved, or caved into pressure--to have Diem murdered. Quite the contrary. I believe it was a message being sent to JFK: "We will have our war in Vietnam with or without Diem, his brother, or you--or else..."
Harriman had no reason to have Kennedy shot at that time, post-Diem coup. Harriman was okay with the end of '65 pull-out date because Gulf of Tonkins are difficult -- but not impossible -- to produce. Two years gave Harriman plentyof time, just like in Iran and the Shah's two year wait for Mossadegh to be overthrown. Around the Harriman house-hold they called for NSAM 263 every time they ran out of toilet paper.
Now, Cliff, there you go being "entertaining" again! The toilet paper story is the funniest thing I've ever heard about that--indeed about ANY--NSAM in my life!
I'll go one of those "angles" better, Monk. Looks to me possible that George H. W. Bush was assigned to help abort the assassination and he screwed the pooch. (snip...)Which pooch, Barney or Miss Beazley? I shouldn't need to ask, but I've heard rumors he was... But, seriously, I have real trouble with this concept of "abort teams" being placed. By whom? By those who are going to relay a "pardon" at the last minute that was granted by the "top" co-conspirator? Under what POSSIBLE conditions would such a "stop" order be issued?
I really don't think the following (invented) scenario or any similar version is likely:
"Before JFK left AF 1 at Love Field he sent a memo to McGeorge Bundy reversing his withdrawal from Vietnam policy. We intercepted the communication and have, therefore, "changed our minds" about killing him. Get this abort order to George H W Bush who is on the ground in Dallas immediately."
Nah... I really don't think so. If it was true, then the military/intelligence/National Security apparatus was already in control of the executive branch of the government even BEFORE Dallas. If JFK had caved in on Vietnam before the assassination to save himself, then he was never (or no longer) the commander-in-chief, and thus there would have been NO NEED to assassinate him. But they did. I don't buy the idea that it wouldn't have happened but for a "failed abort" signal.
-
I had to smile at the large number of emails I received commenting on who they thought was responsible. I suspect it was none of those people.
You should have a "money pool" ready just in case there's ever another attack. Then whoever figures out the perp's identity first gets the prize. (No admins allowed to play, though).
-
Doug Weldon said:
"She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction."
I agree in principle, if re-phrased without the absoluteness:
"The fact that she may not be a fraud still is no guarantee that she is not perpetrating a fraud..."
-
Dean:
Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.
Best,
Doug Weldon
She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive.
I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho!
That is NOT rational.
Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition.
It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" --
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.
-
Barb:
... "Have you ever had a dream where you dreamed the whole world was having a party and you were not invited?" ...
Doug Weldon
On the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, George Gobel once asked: "Did you ever feel life was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?"
Indeed...
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Burnham
Thanks for your post, Terry, which confirms much of what I wrote. It should come as no surprise that whenever any significant development toward Palestinian self rule occurs, Israel is attacked by one (or more) of her neighbors. This has been happening since 1948. It is in Israel's own self interest for there to be a Palestinian State. The successful establishment of such an official Palestinian State does not and would not threaten Israel in any way. The Jews have been living with Palestinians while surrounded by mostly anti-Jewish Arab States for more than a half century already. It would benefit Israel if the Palestinians declared and were capable of sustaining sovereignty. If that were to happen, such status might well be honored by Israel. Indeed, it would be supported! We have no evidence suggesting otherwise.
The Palestinians are not the enemies of the Israelis--and the vast majority of Israeli citizens (and leaders) are intelligent enough to identify the real enemy or they couldn't have survived this long. A state of perpetual conflict between Israel and her neighbors is par for the course when those neighbors have sworn to destroy her. The mis-characterization of that conflict as existing between "Israelis and Palestinians" is in the interest of those Arab States who have sworn to "drive the Jews into the sea" as it diverts attention away from their agenda.
Some would cite the fact that several hundred thousand "Palestinian" Arabs either voluntarily left their homes in 1948 protesting the existence of the Jewish State, which was a result of the UN Resolution that partitioned the land, or they were driven from their homes in the ensuing conflict. Although I don't deny the tragedy that befalls refugees, it is grossly unfair to suggest that Israel was wrong to accept a homeland that was legally acquired according to International Law.
There are certain requirements for a nation to become sovereign and there are other requirements for a nation to REMAIN that way. One requirement is that a nation who would be soveriegn must be capable of holding their territory. Indeed, THAT is the ultimate litmus test of sovereignty. Israel's neighbors have militarily challenged her ability to "hold her territory" several times. So far, their challenges have failed. Wanna bet when the next MAJOR challenge is launched? Yeah, it'll be the next time there is any real hope of Palestinians living in peace with Jews. The challenge to Israel's sovereignty will come from her Arab neighbors in the form of surface-to-surface missile attacks, destruction of ports-of-call, or pathetically, in the form of suicide bombers intentionally taking out civilian by-standers. When Israel repels the attack, she will ironically be labeled the "agressor" -- Go figure...