Terry Mauro

I didn't know that the CIA was in the business of investigating U.S. citizens. I thought that the CIA's job was to "collect information" on foreign governments (which of course soon turned into overthrowing them). ********************************************************************** "I didn't know that the CIA was in the business of investigating U.S. citizens. I thought that the CIA's job was to "collect information" on foreign governments (which of course soon turned into overthrowing them). They weren't supposed to be, but we now know, after 40 years of researching, that they did the FBI's job better than Hoover could have ever hoped to. Hey Bernie, good to see you stepping up to the plate, and just in the knick of time, too, I might add. Keep on slugging, Dawn! I'm right behind you gals. Don't worry, Mark S. I believe we've got it covered. But thanks again, for the support. You too, Mark K. Nobody's worshipping at anyone's altar, here. We're merely offended by the mendacious attitude projected by "Know-It-All" Foster, and the rest of her cheering squad. But then again, we are here to debate, are we not? Therefore, let us be masterful about it. I've found Mr. Parsons and Mr. Brooks to be quite adept at the art, on par with another excellent debater, Mr. Robert Charles Dunne, and truly welcome the skillfulness they've exhibited in this arena. Ter

************************************************************** "I think a xxxxx is somebody who posts stuff that is boring, like your above post that I did not bother to read, past the first 2 sentences." You would, wouldn't you? That's because you're just as boring in your insistence upon remaining so uninformed. "That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing." I find the brand of "democracy" being tossed around by the Bush administration today, to be equally disturbing.

************************************************************************** "Mark Lane is an American hero. He used his position as a lawyer and former member of the JFK political camp to do about as much as any researcher can do to expose the conspiracy. Rush to Judgment was a landmark book, and his court victory over E. Howard Hunt (and the info that came from that case) was priceless. I remember reading Lane say somewhere that he feels he has done his part. I agree." EXACTLY!!! Rush To Judgement and Plausible Denial answered many questions, and posed much more than any of us ever hoped possible. The fascists would rather have us believe that Mark Lane was nothing more than a showboater, the same as they wanted us to believe of Garrison. But, those of us who actually read with the willingness to learn, and the skepticism to know better than to trust the U.S. gov. to give us ANYTHING BUT the truth, will always be indebted to attorneys such as Lane, Garrison, Weisberg, and those who've worked tirelessly behind the scenes. Yet, in the face of brutal ridicule, and despite the orchestrated attempts at derision by Operation Mockingbird's "media machine", have managed to bring the dirty laundry regarding this American coup d'etat to the light of day for all the world to see. They said it couldn't happen here, but it sure in hell did.

******************************************************** Debra Conway posted this description, explaining the modus operandi of "Internet Trolls" on her JFKLancer site, a few months back. I find it quite apropo with regard to your not-so-subtle attempts to distract, disrupt, and provoke other forum members with your haughty, abusive retorts by which you persist in claiming to be done in the name of, research(?). __________________________________________________________ Subject: "What is an Internet xxxxx?" Previous topic | Next topic Debra Conway Wed Jul-20-05 07:51 PM Member since Dec 31st 2002 650 posts #33535, "What is an Internet xxxxx?" Excerpts from the article "Internet Trolls" Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell July 13 2001 Edition http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm What is an Internet xxxxx? An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Why does it Matter? Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants." It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved. Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a xxxxx and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users. Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash. The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas. <...snip...> The Webmaster's Challenge When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later. The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a xxxxx's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the xxxxx. Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a xxxxx based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a xxxxx does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the xxxxx can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate. Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person? Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a xxxxx that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the xxxxx actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself. What about Free Speech? When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim. While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good. Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst. The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared. When a xxxxx attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel. The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a xxxxx that he is not welcome, the xxxxx has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the xxxxx might be justified in asking for a refund.) Conclusion Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a xxxxx, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "xxxxx Alert" and type only this: The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls. By posting such a message, you let the xxxxx know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby. Read whole article: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm --- Please visit the rest of our website at http://www.jfklancer.com Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

******************************************************** Thanks, Stephen. I assure you, I shall treasure this.

The shutting down of the Federal Reserve is one of the best explanations for the assassination of JFK. A non-governmental CORPORATION, in private hands, prints our money. For the mere price of materials needed to produce this "money" (actually promissory notes) the Fed "loans" us this "money", which cost only the price of materials to them, at face value plus interest, which we are then to re-pay to this corporation. The corporation is ruining America. What else do you expect when one company can produce billions of dollars worth of wealth for a mere thousands of dollars? We are a nation of fools for allowing this practice to have continued since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve Corporation was enabled, via act of Congress, in direct violation of our constitution, to manufacture and therefore control our nation's money supply. Every time a "loan" is made for a mortgage, a car or what have you, our national debt is increased and the banker's reap the profits while we are left with less and less money in our system with which we can pay our bills. The "money" for these "loans" is created by the promissory notes we sign. Contrary to what you may think, this is not a loan given by the bank. The "loan" is funded by a deposit account created in your/my name by the depositing of the note you sign for the mortgage into that account. The account is used to obtain money from the Fed, the bank puts that money into it's asset account, not your deposit account. The result? The bank gets paid twice for the note. You and the Fed pay the bank the principle named in the note to the bank's asset account. Then interest on the loan is a bonus, usually 3 times the loan value itself, which the bank is essentially stealing from you. The catch which will nail the bankers is that they stamp the note for deposit to the account. This is altering YOUR NOTE, which is illegal for anyone but you to do, and is the only evidence available to prove the fraud. This note is returned to you after the note is payed off by you. Look on the back of any returned note, you will find, "for deposit without recourse to", this is the bank stamp which contains a wet ink signature of a bank official who deposited YOUR NOTE, after altering it, into an account made in YOUR NAME, to obtain funds for the notes value, from the Fed. Please don't direct your objections to this post to me. Educate yourself first by reading or researching the subject yourself. This is one of the primary reasons for our astronomical national debt. Money is created for the notes, but, money for the interest on the notes is not created, resulting in a money shortage which will never disappear. Think about it, 180k interest on a 60k loan. The money is not allowed to be printed for the interest on the note. It is a lose-lose system for us and a win-win for the bankers. It is time for change if we are to save our country from this privately run corporation. JFK knew what was going on and he sought to put an end to the ruin he saw waiting for us further down the road. The wars do not get fought unless the bankers give the loans. This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? I know the banks fund wars. Your argument of it being a silly idea that JFK was killed due to the federal reserve is silly in itself if you ask me. Chuck Robbins ****************************************************************************** I greatly appreciate your clarification on this, Chuck. In fact, I think I'l just copy and paste it into my files. Thank you. Ter

******************************************************************************* "In the introduction to his book, Marrs advises the reader not to trust his book. This appears to be good advice." Hi Ron, I respect your work as a researcher, therefore I find this intro of Marrs' quite disturbing to say the least. What was his reasoning behind the dissemination of false information, or was he using this as an example of such? I haven't read Crossfire, therefore I wasn't aware of this passage in the introduction. I can't say that I'm a follower of his writings either, because I'm not a believer in the UFO phenomenon. And, not being a fan of McAdams, leaves me non-plussed as to the credentials of Dr. Edward Flaherty, as well. As you already know, I lean toward a conglomeration of players involved in the assassination culminating from the top on down. I believe Donald Gibson was on the right trail regarding Wall Street, as well as the involvement of the oil cartels. Yet I don't see one entity, in and of itself alone, as having the power to pull off a major coup of this magnitude. The tentacles reach far and wide with respect to whom and/or what may have had the power to orchestrate the cover-up, which I consider to be the major issue here, aside from the murder itself. I don't believe Castro and the Russians were physically involved in any of this, although they probably heard rumblings about it through their own intelligence sources. Organized crime had their beef, and the Cuban aristocratic community of plantation owners were another entity themselves with their United Fruit connections, and the money they subsequently stood to lose if Castro could not be unseated. But to try and pass the buck to Castro and the Soviets is ridiculous. I agree with the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam as having a major hand in it because of the government contracted deals with Northrup, Grummond, McDonnell, Douglas, Hughes, Bell, and the assorted sub-contracting companies employed by the M.I.C. which I also link to the financial houses of Wall Street, like Morgan, along with the oil companies, such as Standard Oil aka Rockefeller, as being substantial losers in the event of their war efforts being thwarted. But, that's merely the tip of the iceberg. And, also why it's been so difficult to pin it down to one faction or the other when there are so many variables at work here. I also take offense with snotty individuals who resort to leveling derisive and subjective comments about people who are no longer around to defend their actions or their honor. Then, proceeds in stooping to the use of underhanded tactics such as upbraiding a forum member for challenging her retorts, simply because he happens to be a bright high school student. And, you know to whom I am referring. But, thanks again Ron for posting this from McAdams' site. I always took Col. Prouty at his word, and thus believed I could count on his better judgement as far as what he allowed to be presented on his site. Forgive me for not updating my facts in a more efficient and timely manner. Warmest regards, Ter

****************************************************************************** If you are an educator, try being less condescendingly smug to those upon whom you are attempting to impart your pearls of wisdom. The book, Pedagogy Of The Oppressed by Paulo Freire may be a good read for you as well. Below you will find another faction of equal culpability, possessing the power, money, and wherewithal to pull off the crime of the 20th century as well as the fourth coup d'etat to occur on U.S. soil within the span of a hundred years: NSAM 11110 aka Executive Order 11110: On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous. With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver. After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so? Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows: Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended- By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): (j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821 ), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption and -- Byrevoking subparagraphs and [c] of paragraph 2 thereof. Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made. John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963. Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence. Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.) Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government. Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation. Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money. No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges. The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use. The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the Nation. Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy. Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power. Some information on the Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation. One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money: Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.). The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them. As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is. No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that: Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the monied vultures who control it. Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire: Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency. Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks. A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high. ______________________________________________________________________________ The above is courtesy of the Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty Forum

*********************************************************** "Also, the claim that Garrison discredited the warren Commission is silly. The only thing that Garrison ever discredited is the truth -that's why David Ferrie dropped dead while in his custody." Oh puleeeezzze, with your skewed attempts at logic, Ms. Know-It-All Foster! David Ferrie was iced by the same cabal bent on discrediting Garrison. HELLO??? Take your own advice and go back to school. You apparently lack the tools of a more seasoned and knowledgeable educator of which you claim to be. And, you do claim to be an educator, am I reading you correctly? Your lack of professionism reeks of condescending audacity.

******************************************************** Only the Fascists rule America. Anyone possessing half a brain is aware of that fact. Oh, and as far as what my political leanings are? I'm a Revolutionary Socialist ready and waiting for the resultant anarchy to follow, as soon as the bubble explodes, and it will explode.

************************************************************************ You left out Bohemian Grove, Ron. Which IS real.

******************************************************************************** Hi John, Sorry for misleading anyone regarding my capitalization of the word MAD, as it wasn't in reference to the magazine MAD, but to M-Ad for Madison Avenue-Advertizing firms, and their incessantly moronic ad campaigns. I should have hyphenated that, or better yet, written it out. David Berg, one of Mad Magazine's artists and writers, was a friend of my family's. He knew my Dad, who was a commercial artist since the 1920's, and worked with many of the firms on Madison Avenue. The Berg's lived on Davenport Road in New Rochelle, NY, and the Mauro's lived on Harding Drive, so there were many times our families ran into each other, either as a whole, or separately, on Main Street, or at the beach in Hudson Park, located on the Long Island Sound. We had lost contact over the years, after I moved to the coast, and with the passing of my parents within 5 years of one another during the 1980's. In 2002, I would find a David Berg scheduled for a Bone Scan with me at Western Imaging Center, but would not recognize him at first. I hadn't lived at my parent's house in New Rochelle since 1963, and as I related above, lost contact with alot of people, over time. But, as I was walking him and his wife and daughter down to their car in the parking garage, I mentioned that my family had known a David Berg and family in our hometown of New Rochelle, and that's when they told me it was them! He apparently hadn't noticed my name tag and last name, and since I was no longer a brunette and was now wearing glasses, they didn't recognize me at first, either. So, it was a melancholy little reunion of sorts to find this once tall and robust gentleman now, seemingly old and shrunken with age. He passed away a few months later, but had sent me some excerpts of the things he was working on, and just as my own father had, he worked on his art until the day he died. His daughter called me and told me the news. But, it was such a treat to find an old friend, who had relocated out here to Marina Del Rey some twenty or so years after I had moved to California, looking to escape those cold New York winters. I grew up reading MAD Magazine, and still picked it up from time to time over the years. I loved the Spy vs Spy section, and especially loved those little sketches inserted between the spaces separating the actual storyline drawings. MAD Magazine was an accurate parody of everything Operation Mockingbird stood for. Those guys were on the money with their satirical mimickings of the establishment, and the hippocracy surrounding our everyday lives.

Heh, I thought this might have had something to do with it (on the flip side is the fold from MAD topic). ******************************************************************************* Leave it to "MAD" Madison Avenue to come up with any old way to sell a product regardless of the misinformation, just as long as it "sells". Hey, another arm of Operation Mockingbird mocking the gullibility of the dumb American public, perhaps?

Tim, Gerry's regular sign-off is "cereal' as opposed to "seriously." "Quaker Oats" is an extension of the joke. ******************************************************************************** Tim, Gerry's regular sign-off is "cereal" as opposed to "seriously." "Quaker Oats" is an extension of the joke. I thought GPH's, "cereal" was somehow synonymous with "cheers", or "cheerio" [the English slang for a greeting, or a farewell], and Cheeri-Os, the American cereal, shaped like an "O", and supposedly made from "oats". Hence, "Cheerio, old chap." Or, "Cereal, old chap." As well as, his "Quaker Oats" sign off, with Quaker Oats Cereal. The cereal, "That's shot from guns!", from what the old commercials used to claim about it. At least that's what I'm reading into it. FWIW.

******************************************************************************** **** Here you go, Chrissie: Overview: Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." History of the Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It was first published in a children's magazine Youth's Companion, in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. 4 The word "to" was added before "the Republic" in 1892-OCT. He considered including the word "equality" in the pledge, but decided against it because he knew that many Americans at the time were opposed to equality for women and African-Americans. Opposition to equality continues today; a sizeable minority of American adults remain opposed to equal rights for women. By 1924, the "National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Francis Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." 3 Most Jehovah's Witness children refuse to acknowledge the flag. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school boards could compel them to recite the Pledge. The court reversed itself three years later. 4 In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3 The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism. Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are many Atheistic and Humanistic legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against these belief systems. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.] On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. However, the ruling will only take effect if it is upheld on appeal. The decision may be appealed to the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court, or to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning. 1,2

Hi Harry, Good to see you here. Hope all's well with you. I'll have my mother say a rosary for Rich. Bill Kelly bkjfk3@yahoo.com ******************************************************************************** ********* Hi Harry. And, Hi Bill! Great to see you here, too. I spoke to Shelby last week, when things were still up in the air. But, I just got an update from Dixie today and Rich seems to be making some good progress, as far as wanting to get out of the hospital and heading back home. So, the signs are looking better, especially now that he's ready to start re-prioritizing his situation, as Shelby put it to Dixie. All of your prayers and genuine concern seem to be doing the job. Keep the candles burning. Warmest regards, Ter

******************************************************************** Well, I hate to keep sounding like a broken record amongst all the other theories that have been drilled into the collective consciousness here, but below is my idea of the true and highest of eschelon, who had the resources at their immediate access with which to pull off this national, as well as, international crime of the century, 20th, that is: Letter of the month Re: Executive Order 11110 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Col. Prouty, Could JFK's decision to curtail the power of the fed have anything to do with his assassination. $6 trillion seems a good enough reason. The following article may be of interest to you. The original EO was no.10289. Neil Turner. ------------- The following article appeared in "The Final Call", Vol 15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA) President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous. With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver. After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so? (All Readers are urged to obtain a copy of Executive Order 11110 by contacting their Congressional representative, it is dated June 4, 1963.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply From Col. Prouty to Neil Turner Thanks for your good question Neil, Your comment about "The power of the Fed" as a factor in the over-all decision to assassinate JFK is correct. Do you recall the line at the beginning of the conversation of Garrison and Man X in Washington in Stone's movie "JFK"? Jim Garrison asks, "How do you think it all started?" Man X (Prouty) responds, " I think it startedi n the wind. Money -- arms, big oil, Pentagon people, contractors, bankers, politicians like L.B.J. were committed to a war in Southeast Asia. As early as '61 they knew Kennedy was going to change things... He was not going to war in Southeast Asia. Who knows? Probably some boardroom or luncheon somewhere - Houston, New York -- hell, maybe Bonn, Germany... who knows, it's international now." You're correct, and the above is what I wrote for Oliver Stone. It is what I believe from my experience. And, you are correct to go back to Exec. Order no. 11110. That money JFK putinto circulation was an enormous challenge to the business world. I am a graduate of the American Bankers Assn "Graduate School of Banking" at the University of Wisconsin and I have heard some of the top bankers, such as Arthur Burns lecture. That was in the late Sixties; but you could still feel the stress of those JFK years in what they had to say. JFK was serious about getting "all Americans" out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That was NSAM 263 and my boss General Victor Krulak, with the JCS, had worked on that document. Even the Pentagon Papers made an attempt to conceal NSAM #263. In addition to the references you have cited, may I suggest that you get the "Foreign Relations of the united States. 1961-1963, Volume IV, VIETNAM, August-December 1963" from the US Gov't Printing Office and see what it was all about in those days. ----------- 2) Len: You have made a good comment about the use of the "$220 to $570 billion: potential of the war in Vietnam. It's a good point that requires an understanding of the inside talk in a place like the Pentagon. For example: No less than "4,865 U.S. helicopters were lost in the war." Source: "The World Almanac of the VIETNAM WAR" 1985. At a cost of "250,000 each" that is some $1,316,250,000. In addition 3720 conventional aircraft were lost at much greater cost. That's basic usually sucjh losses are replaced more than doubling the cost. In the military we always figure that in the "life of type" of military equipment about ten times as much money is spent to keep it in operation and to support it as it cost initially. Use that kind of perfectly valid thinking and the numbers grow fast. I recall at the end of 1963 we had a few more than 16,000 military personnel in Vietnam. Of that number no more than 1,500 were actually combat tuype men. The others were just expensive support such as maintenance men, supply depot men, hospitals, etc. Recalll that later that number grew to 550,000 in Vietnam. More than 10,000,000 military personnel were flown to Saigon by commercial aircraft during the thirty years of our involvement. I have a Report that was made to Congress that reveals that no less than $51 billion were stolen one way or another during the Vietnam war. So when some budget worker gives a figure he cites what he has on the books as the "initial spending" for the cost of the war. Meanwhile the over-all books easily multiply that. So in some testimony before the Congress the figure might be $220 billion, while in another context an over-all figure of $550 billion will be used. Both are correct for different reasons. How much did your car cost you? How much have you spent on it, or will you have spent on it during its life cycle? L. Fletcher Prouty

******************************************************************** Sounds like the FEMA's playing that old, "pass the buck," game. I expected little else. But, as far as the media is concerned, there's absolutely no excuse for their blatant lack of support as far as connecting the two cities via their own stations' or channels' broadcasting patches and hook-up capabilities. Unless, of course, as in the case in Jefferson Parish, so vividly described by Parish President Broussard to Tim Russert regarding the lines being intentionally cut. Whatever happened to the explanation for that action, and why it was allowed to go down in the first place?

Hi, Terry and John D. Yes Terry, Dangerous is the proper term for these that have infested the political, bureaucratic and social areas in the U.S.. thereby affecting the world as a resut of their control. Hi, John LDS members with government post extend from the Ward house to the White House. Under Bush Sr., Larry Bush {no relation} a Mormon official at the Agriculture Department explained in a 1981 interview that today's Washington LDS Saints refer to themselves among themselves as a "sisterhood". It is a term with roots at the CIA where the church is particularly well represnted. CIA agents also refer to one another as sisters. George Bush Sr. appointed former General, Brent Scowcroft, Roger Porter, and Steve Studdert all Mormons to top White House posts in foreign affairs, domestic policy, and political schedualing. While Scowcroft, Porter and Studdert were the most visible Mormons running the government as the Bush administration began, they were only three among hundreds,perhaps thousands,of DC. Saints with influential positions in the ferderal government. Furthermore, similar Mormon "knots" thrive at state, county, and local levels throughout the country. The resulting Mormon power elite - a tightly knit, almost exclusively white male assemblage of jurists, jornalists,, FBI agents, CIA excecutives, interior department managers, Pentagon brass, corporation chiefs, and ranking White House officials continue to make up a substantial portion of United States government! [example, Scowcroft remains along with other Mormons Bush Jr. advisor}. Roger Blaine Porter under Bush Sr. was Presidential assistant for Domestic and Economic policy. Studdert served as advance man in the Ford White House and as campaign aid in charge of Bush Sr's image in 1988 election season. Scowcroft during the Reagan administration persuaded the U.S. government to scrap a church opposed plan to base the then new generation of MX long range missiles in Utah. Mormon interests were again served by the secular activities of one of the faithful. Jeffery Willis, long time CIA personel director, under pressure revealed that many other Silver Springs, Maryland, Mormon ward members were CIA men, including columnist Jack Anderson. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch {also Mormon} R-Utah during a move to extend ERA act threatened to stage a filibuster to head off the Senate vote on extention. ERA {Equal Rights Amendment}. James Fletcher {Mormon} head of the National Areonautics and Space Administration {NASA} visited the Sterling ward house to read a letter from the Twelve Apostles {church leadership} ordering Saints to oppose the amendment. That letter was sent to Mormon lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Saints on the White House staff, at CIA headquarters, in the FBI, and throughout the federal bureaucracy.That letter led to an expertly organized effort that ultimately killed the chance for ratification. Their kind are still there , Scowcroft, Hatch, now endless other newer recruits along with some of the other older Mormons mentioned above, as they infest and run the present and future political U.S. administrations. More dire than 'natural disasters' the LDS "plan" rolls on, and over!. Research will reveal the monster, by it's "political image!". It is still not to late?. Harry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LDS, Later Day Saints "Political Manifesto" Saints {Mormons} must consult their ecclesiastical superiors to obtain permission before accepting any appointment that might interfere with their religious duties. Harry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************** "LDS, Later Day Saints "Political Manifesto" Saints {Mormons} must consult their ecclesiastical superiors to obtain permission before accepting any appointment that might interfere with their religious duties. Harry" ******************************************************************** Harry, this group lends a more insidious spin to the word, "fundamentalism." There has always been an enormous amount of unnecessary blood shed in the name of God Almighty. Therefore, I am equally shocked and dismayed at the infiltration of this beast into our mainstream society, similar to the course taken by a metastatic disease on the human body. And yet, as seemingly bizarre as a take on that old Kevin McCarthy- Dana Winters movie, "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers." Why were the checks and balances not in place to counter a religious coup of a magnitude such as this one? Who was supposed to be minding the store when the LDS began chewing away at the foundation of our constitution, like the termite infestation they truly are?

This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people. Sigh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************* "This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people." ******************************************************************* Which also runs the risk of the story being repeated, or reiterated a third, fourth, or fifth time. And, much like the loss of generations which occur each time you add another track to a tape in a recording studio, resulting in what is known as tape "hiss", quite discernible on the finished product, even after hours have been spent in the final mixing process. So too, can the initial accounts of witnesses also take on another sound of their own, either through unintentional embellishment on the part of the witness, in an effort to satisfy the interviewer's questions, or on the part of the interviewer, equally unintentional, in an effort to extract something more prescient than the witness may be able to offer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************* Very true indeed, however - this one event had visual evidence attached, and this one witness is quite reliable. When I'm finished trying to prove it yes or no, and I've cleared it with my original source, I plan on posting it here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************* "Very true indeed, however - this one event had visual evidence attached, and this one witness is quite reliable. When I'm finished trying to prove it yes or no, and I've cleared it with my original source, I plan on posting it here." ******************************************************************* That's great, Nic. I'll be looking forward to reading what you've found out about this. I know you're dedicated to getting to the heart of the matter. Keep up the good work.

******************************************************************* Absolutely! Anyone allowing themselves to be dominated by fundamentalism in the religious sense of the word, be it: Christian, Islamic, Judaic, etc., are willingly subjecting themselves to superstitious nonsense of the nth degree. Besides lacking the basic wherewithal necessary to think outside, what is present term being tossed around today, the proverbial "box"? Organized fundamentalism, whatever religious affiliation, is nothing more than organized mind control on a massive scale. I suppose that's why televised evangelism is so popular due to the mass hypnosis elicited in the Pavlovian response so blatantly apparent in the "sheeple" of its various "flocks". But, that's JMHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why the heck would a church maintain such a data base? Further, why would the FBI approach them for use of a data base already available on the web? Because the base on the web is not all there is? To access a database that is not on the web ie. the redacted bits? Can't help seeing similarities here with the SISS and Senator Eastlands database. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, John D. INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT The question..........future liberty Arise! Alert to sacrifice Boycott the 'beastly mark' Mormon mastery To track all persons, thoughts and deeds Boycott this 'all powerful' apostate Masonry With assassins grip 'on all U.S. politics' Boycott their 'common cause' new century, Buy not.......sell not.........use not Boycott it's 'dialectic indignities' Destroy the 'brute comrades zeal Boycott their 'new order' equality For 'U.N. world' work ethic, slavery Boycott the chaos-creator's 'pale tyranny' Who's lackeys in 'lethal power' rule Boycott 'the plan' of few to subvert majorities With 'legislated limits' on all rights of liberty! {c} by Harry J. Dean <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************** In 1995 the Church agreed to halt proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims and other deceased Jews, and to remove the names of all Holocaust victims from the files. Such names are now only accepted if they are resubmitted by a direct descendant or if consent is obtained from the dead person's immediate family. Since that agreement Church genealogists have stripped hundreds of thousands of Jewish names from baptismal records. Theological problem Members of other faiths argue that it is just plain wrong to baptise dead people and make them Mormons when they can't have any say in the matter. Mormons say that this is a fundamental error. No-one has to accept a proxy baptism. Just as the soul in paradise has a free choice to accept or reject the true gospel, they have a free choice to accept or reject the baptism. If they choose to accept the gospel, the proxy baptism means that they are fully equipped to move on in their spiritual life. ******************************************************************* Harry, this is insanity on a mass scale. These people are more than crazy. They're dangerous.

Words Get Around <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************** Here is a selection from the libertarian thinker Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" (emphases are Rand's): The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of Amerca was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system -- as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous system had regarded man as a sacrifical means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. Radical thoughts? No. Just uniquely American thoughts. Thanks to the domination of American schools by "liberal" Democrats for at least one full generation, few people of either side of the "liberal/conservative" debate are willing to accept such ideas. Liberals adore their economic meddling, while conservatives adore their societal meddling. So while the socialization of America (economically, societally, and politically) can largely be attributed to "liberals" -- if only because they dominated Congress for so long, and thus had more time to meddle with things -- there is some blame left over for "conservatives." But enough blame. What could be done? Principle says that the US government should be trimmed back dramatically. The ideal of the individual must be reestablished; he should not be violated for the sake of "liberal" economics, not for the sake of "conservative" morality either. The States should hold all the powers not relegated to the Federal government. The States, for their part, should not engage in activities which oppress the individual for socialistic reasons. We need a Judiciary which refuses to interpret the Constitution along socialist lines; it would be just as wrong to force abortion on the entire country a la Roe v. Wade as it would be to force a "Federal Marriage Amendment" strictly defining marriage according to Christian precepts as one man and one woman. Socialism is wrong no matter its justification, as this student has carefully tried to explain to several conservatives elsewhere. Like eating M&Ms, tyranny all comes out the same in the end no matter its original colour. The American polity has descended into a gang of bullies all finding reasons to shove around the individual. In this way, America is no different from all the other civilizations in world history. But there is always hope. The message of liberty trumps socialism any time, as long as it is clearly and vigorously expressed. It would be easier if the US government's branches, the news media, schools, colleges, and universities were liberated from the grips of socialism, however. But liberty was never easy; as the old cliche goes, freedom is not free. The dream of freedom is inherently superior to any legislative Utopia imagined by people. ******************************************************************** I've read every book of Ayn Rand's as well as her journals, and although I respect her intellect, I believe she really did not possess an adequate perspective with regard to the racial and ethnic issues plaguing an ever diversifying country. A country known for its paradoxical and hypocritical form of governance which it insists on identifying as a "democratic republic," an oxymoron, in and of itself.

This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people. Sigh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************* "This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people." ******************************************************************* Which also runs the risk of the story being repeated, or reiterated a third, fourth, or fifth time. And, much like the loss of generations which occur each time you add another track to a tape in a recording studio, resulting in what is known as tape "hiss", quite discernible on the finished product, even after hours have been spent in the final mixing process. So too, can the initial accounts of witnesses also take on another sound of their own, either through unintentional embellishment on the part of the witness, in an effort to satisfy the interviewer's questions, or on the part of the interviewer, equally unintentional, in an effort to extract something more prescient than the witness may be able to offer.