Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
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.
Moreover, I think the fact that you people are evidently hero-worshiping Jim Garrison is disturbing.
Hitler condemned Communism in the name of Democracy, and in a similar fashion, Garrison condemned Fascism, in the name of Democracy.
That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing.
**************************************************************
"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.
-
Mr. Stapleton, I think you have misunderstood my comments about Jim Garrison.
I believe that Jim Garrison's investigation served a very worthy purpose, in that it brought out information that might otherwise have remained buried. Without Jim Garrison's investigation, there would have been no "JFK" movie, which reignited public interest in the assassination and prompted the release of reams of previously classified documents.
But I also can see that Jim Garrison did not deliver what he promised. His investigation resulted in NO convictions, and due to the characterizations in the press of the investigation and prosecution as "half-baked," did much to discredit ALL critics of the Warren Commission whitewash.
It is in respect to the failure to deliver any convictions that my comments about "letting his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass" were aimed. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to making grandiose claims that one is unable to back up. In that respect, I stand by my comments.
The fact is, I think Garrison WAS on the right track, at least initially. I think that Garrison was valuable to ALL researchers, because of both his initial revelations AND by what has come from NARA, for which Garrison is indirectly responsible.
In that light, I don't quite understand your attack on me personally. Just because I don't think Garrison delivered what he promised, and because I don't deify Garrison, doesn't mean that my aim is to trash Garrison, as is the apparent aim of Lynne Foster. Had Garrison's investigation resulted in ONE conviction, I might be bowing down at the altar of Garrison, as many apparently are. But while I'm not canonizing Garrison, neither am I attempting to throw out his contributions to the assassination investigation with the garbage. I'm just trying to call it fairly and honestly.
And Garrison delivered less than he promised. In redneck terms, that is the definition of "letting his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass." Happens all the time in this part of the world, and often to good people, or to people with good intentions and lots of confidence. It just means that had he not built such grandiose expectations, folks like Lynne Foster might have been a bit more charitable toward Garrison and his intentions...which is what I think he deserves.
********************************************************************************
"But I also can see that Jim Garrison did not deliver what he promised. His investigation resulted in NO convictions, and due to the characterizations in the press of the investigation and prosecution as "half-baked," did much to discredit ALL critics of the Warren Commission whitewash."
Yes, and that's exactly the point. The media already had orders to take him down, by way of character assassination and by discrediting his work, on behalf of their sponsors. His case didn't stand a "snowball's chance in hell", to quote another metaphorical phrase. Whose does, and even after all these years?
-
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.
**************************************************************************
"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.
-
At best, Jim Garrison was an incompetent DA. At worst, he was affiliated with the mob.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter --he proved to be useless.
********************************************************
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
Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
-
Terry, just for you, all power to the people.
********************************************************
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
-
Terry,
Please see the article linked below as a counterpoint on the subject of JFK and E.O. 11110.
The URL where I originally found the article (entitled "JFK and the E.O. 11,1110 Conspiracy") is now dead, but I found a version tonight on McAdams's website.
I know little about economics, but the article makes sense to me. There is no author listed in the link, but the author of the article is Dr. Edward Flaherty, an economist.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm
Ron
*******************************************************************************
"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
-
I think that even Oliver Stone, who claimed that a fraud artist like Jim Garrison was a hero, could not avoid the conclusion about "why" Kennedy was murdered.
Please, if you are a high school student, try to learn something before you post a rebuttal here:
******************************************************************************
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
-
There is no rebuttal for a man without integrity.
Nothing on this website has been effectively refuted, although the zeal to defend the man who effectively covered up the truth is indeed interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/zzzpeace/garrison.htm
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:
I think the little high school student ought to go back to school.
***********************************************************
"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.
-
Easy.
Monsters do not rule America.
********************************************************
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.
-
Perhaps this is a proper place to ask, to what extent is "the wealthy" organized internationally? Is there really a cabal of international bankers running everything? Is there really a group called the Bilderbergers that get together every year or whenever to plot the financial rape of everyone else? This leads ultimately to the idea of the "Illuminati," who worship Satan and sacrifice babies or dine on them when not counting their money. There are websites where you can read about this kind of stuff, but there's no way of knowing if there's an ounce of truth anywhere in it, which makes it seem like a waste of time to read about it. It all sounds farfetched, till you realize that something called the MIC does in fact exist and runs America and is all about war which is all about money which is all about screwing everybody else, and it's got the MI5 or 6 and whoever else on its side, and you've got real entities like Skull and Bones at Yale turning out such secretive world dangers as George W. Bush. Sometimes I don't know what to make of it all. I get this nagging fear that I'm stupid or naive to think that the "Illuminati" is a bunch of ridiculous crap, when I know for a fact there are monsters ruling America. Can any light be shed on this stuff?
************************************************************************
You left out Bohemian Grove, Ron. Which IS real.
-
Terry, I dunno, don't know how to read that one. I think Hoover started to involve the bureau when kids started sending him applications for membership to 'The Draft Dodgers Club' and inquiries for 'Hoover Tonic'. General Walker, his lawyer Brig. Gen. Watts and others jumped on the band wagon and alerted Hoover of this seditious rag. Other parents and fine outstanding citizen kids sent a lot of alerts re the editors and even AE Neuman being communists. For a lot it was all tounge and cheek, but for some it was as bad as playing 'sounds of music' backwards. (note, the FBI did conclude that A.E. Neuman was a fictional character, on the whole they just grinned and bore it I think. Apparently one agent wrote on a concerned parents letter a comment 'the kid probably blew his dad a raspberry'). (Possibly the fact that one of the owners of MAD was a jew had something to do with things? Walker seems to have been a bit rabid.) They (MAD) hit pretty hard at the JBS.
********************************************************************************
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.
-
Me too, Mark! Old Amerricans for Freedom!
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?
-
Quaker Oats?
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.
-
Tim, read somewhere--search under "history of Pledge of..." pledge penned by socialist preacher, with no "God" in it at all. Just an interesting aside 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, all. Our good friend Rich DellaRosa at jfkResearch.com/forum is in dire peril healthwise. Please sincerely pray for his recovery.
Harry
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
-
Over the last few months several members have emailed me and asked why JFK was assassinated and who carried out this deed. On another thread Evan Burton has asked me to summarize the different theories on who killed JFK. I have attempted to do that on my website:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
However, although I have tried to be objective, there is no doubt that my own view of the assassination might have got in the way of my interpretation of events. Therefore I thought it might be a good idea if all active members of the JFK Forum posted a brief summary of their theory of the assassination. It will be interesting to see how much agreement there is about the assassination. I will start the ball rolling and hopefully others will join in.
Who Killed JFK?
I believe that the decision to kill JFK took place at the beginning of 1963. The key event was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The public perception of this event was that JFK had stood up to the Soviet Union and won. The truth was very different. JFK was forced to do a deal that involved removing nuclear missiles from Italy and Turkey and a promise not to invade Cuba. This information was kept from the American public and JFK was portrayed in the media as a victorious Cold War warrior.
JFK was riding high in the polls and his “tough” stance on Cuba had neutralized the right-wing campaign of Barry Goldwater. JFK’s only concern was that George Romney would become the 1964 Republican presidential candidate. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK would get the support of many conservatives and Goldwater would only attract the votes of the far right. Even some of these were in doubt because earlier in his campaign, Goldwater and Buckley decided to distance themselves from Robert Welch and the John Birch Society (for information on this see Rick Perlstein’s book, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus).
However, by 1963, JFK was in reality, no longer a Cold War warrior. The Cuban Missile Crisis had changed his political ideology. He had been deeply shocked by the urgings of his military advisers to use nuclear weapons during the conflict with the Soviet Union over Cuba. Only JFK realized just how close the world had come to a full-scale nuclear war. JFK was determined that this situation must never happen again. Therefore, he decided to negotiate an end to the Cold War. This involved reducing the sources of conflict between the USA and the Soviet Union. This included withdrawing from Vietnam and accepting co-existence with left-wing governments in countries like Cuba.
JFK knew that if he announced this new policy in 1963 he would be defeated by Goldwater in 1964. Therefore it was vitally important that this policy should remain a secret from the American people. In fact, the administration even leaked information suggesting it was involved in covert operations against Castro. This I think explains why RFK became involved with anti-Castro Cubans in 1963.
JFK made a terrible mistake. He did not wait until he was elected for a second-term before implementing this new policy. Instead, he used people like Lisa Howard, William Attwood and Jean Daniel to begin negotiations with Castro. It was not too difficult for the CIA to discover what was going on. For example, they had the UN building bugged, the place where some of these negotiations were taking place.
I believe that right-wingers within the CIA such as David Morales, David Phillips, E. Howard Hunt and Rip Robertson arranged for this information to be passed to figures such as Haroldson L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, William Buckley, William Pawley, Henry Luce, George Brown, Robert Anderson and Glenn McCarthy. One, or a combination of these people decided to make sure that JFK did not serve a second term. They provided the money and someone, probably David Morales, was put in charge of the operation.
The initial strategy was to expose JFK’s record as a successful Cold War warrior. I believe this was what Operation Tilt (Bayo-Pawley Mission) was all about. This ended in failure.
It was probably in June 1963 that these plotters began considering the unthinkable, the assassination of JFK. But could they get away with it? I think it was other events taking place at that time that convinced them that this was achievable. The Bobby Baker scandal. People like George Brown and Robert Anderson knew that during the summer of 1963 there was a good possibility that Lyndon Johnson would be forced from office as a result of the TFX contract that had gone to General Dynamics. Fred Korth, the Secretary of the Navy was under investigation (he was forced to resign on the 1st November). We now know that Robert Kennedy was leaking information to John J. Williams and Carl T. Curtis, the two Republican senators leading the investigation into this scandal. They had been put in touch with Don B. Reynolds who had agreed to testify against Johnson (in fact he appeared in secret session of the Senate Rules Committee on the day that JFK was assassinated). This would not only be the end of LBJ, this would fully expose what Dwight Eisenhower had called the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (Eisenhower had been persuaded at the last moment to drop the word “Congressional” from his last speech as president). This included the Suite 8F Group that was at the centre of this network of corruption.
This does not mean that LBJ was involved in the planning of the assassination. However, the conspirators knew that LBJ would be fairly easy to manipulate in order to organize the cover-up that would be needed following the assassination.
The conspirators also knew that if they could arrange for Castro to be identified as the person behind the assassination, then the new president would order an invasion of Cuba. LBJ would also escalate the Vietnam War and his buddies in the Suite 8F Group would make billions via the contracts handed out by the government (as they did).
Morales therefore needed a couple of characters with links to Castro. It did not take them long to identify one such figure: Lee Harvey Oswald. He was perfect for this for several reasons. In the past he had worked for the CIA and currently he was working as an undercover agent for the FBI. This would insure that the CIA and FBI would help with the cover-up. After all, these agencies could not afford for one of their agents to be identified as the killer of JFK. Especially when it was known that JFK had been in conflict with these two organizations.
However, Oswald was not the perfect “patsy”. As a CIA agent he had posed as a Marxist who later became disillusioned with life in the Soviet Union. The CIA had been sloppy when they brought him back to America. He was treated as a double agent rather than the man who was willing to provide U2 information to the Soviets.
His role as a FBI undercover agent in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had also been badly handled. Any investigation of Oswald’s career would suggest that he was not quite the man he seemed. This aspect of the cover up was always going to be difficult to deal with and would test Operation Mockingbird to the limits.
Morales turned to his friends at Interpen and Alpha 66 to carry out the assassination. Another important role these people played was in setting Oswald up. I believe they also planted evidence that linked LBJ to the assassination (the Mac Wallace fingerprint) in order to get his full cooperation after the assassination.
The conspiracy did not go completely to plan. Oswald was not killed (this was probably the role of J. D. Tippit) immediately after the assassination.
LBJ also did not act as was expected. He decided to undermine the Castro did it conspiracy. Officially, he did this to avoid a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. This is of course a lot of nonsense as this would not have been the consequence of an invasion of Cuba.
The real reason was that LBJ thought that any attempt to blame Castro for the assassination would have led to a world-wide investigation into the case. This would not only have led to the exposure of the CIA and FBI, it would have eventually have revealed full details of the workings of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Therefore, LBJ decided to pressurize Hoover and then the Warren Commission to argue that JFK had been killed by a “lone nut”. This would enable LBJ to close off the investigation. The only problems with this is that there was a lot of evidence suggesting that JFK had been killed by more than one man. There was also enough manufactured evidence around that suggested that Oswald had been part of a pro-Castro conspiracy. That is why, despite the best efforts of Operation Mockingbird, the investigation continues.
********************************************************************
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
-
Saw an ABC News program rehashing the New Orleans debacle the other night. It seems the Governor of Louisiana had called FEMA and asked for "everything you've got," but since the request wasn't specific enough--numbers of National Guardsmen, number of buses, etc--FEMA delayed ANY response until they received a specific number. Unfortunately, FEMA failed to relay this desire for specificity back to the governor...hence the communications breakdown.
SO...was the governor at fault for not saying how many troops and how many buses, or was FEMA at fault for not responding...even the response that they needed specific numbers??
Biggest problem was, governow wasn't IN New Orleans to see what was going on...and mayor and local emergency officials were without communications--except TV networks, apparently--for a couple of days.
Question that comes to MY mind is...why couldn't/didn't network news organizations HELP establish communications between New Orleans and other governmental agencies? They could obviously communicate between their reporters in NO and their anchors in New York...right? So why not set up communications between NO and Baton Rouge? Or NO and Washington? Obivously it COULD be done, but it WASN'T done.
********************************************************************
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 Harry, it seems they have a bit of a headstart. I think Kennedy was into building alternative structures to counter this rising 'control'. He had an emphasis as well on education?
No doubt you have considered what to do about it. I think your speaking out here is progressive. Have you developed thoughts on 'where to go from here'?
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
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
********************************************************************
"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?
-
And Nic, I agree that "what you think you KNOW may not be the case." I've encountered a lot of instances of that already...what I've been told as "fact" turned out to be fiction. That's why I raised the question...how are we gonna know the facts when we see them? There's already enough "reasonable doubt" out there to drive a person over the edge. So how does one discover what's real when so many of the principals are dead, or refuse to speak, or refuse to speak with clarity?
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.
*******************************************************************
"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.
*******************************************************************
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.
*******************************************************************
"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.
-
Terry, these people dont qualify for the term Human Beings, They are excrement, simple excrement. Hymn singing, God bothering, savages, with no more empathy in their shriveled souls than boiled cabbage. If thats what being a "Christian" means, then i am proud to be an atheist. Still look on the bright side, if they are right, about God, and I am wrong it means they get to spend ETERNITY burning in Hell.
*******************************************************************
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.
-
Mr. Dean,
Any idea what the purpose of the database might entail? I know the concept - when someone is of age, or is baptized into the faith by immersion in water, they are baptized, then dunked again multiple times, on behalf of the 'unsaved' dead. The overall goal, I believe, is to identify everyone that every lived and breathed [and save them I guess]. Is that all there is to it would you know?
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bennett.htm
Found this article on Wim Dankbaar's site interesting. Tosh Plumlee is a member of this Forum, but I don't believe he has posted in some time.
- lee
Mormon Database Experts To Help FBI Track Terrorists– Dick Eastman
The FBI is consulting LDS Church computer experts who manage the huge genealogy databases to help rebuild the bureau's outdated information system. Officials say repeated failures by the FBI system have hindered some of the bureau's most important investigations in recent years, including the probe into the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"The FBI's troubled information management systems are likely to have a continuing negative impact on its ability to properly investigate crimes," says Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine. "The FBI has both a paper and an electronic management system in place, neither of which is reliable."
The FBI has begun addressing its problems in managing and analyzing the mass of information it gathers in investigations. As part of that effort, Mormon officials are providing advice for developing name-recognition programs that would assist authorities in finding and tracking suspects.
There are more details available in a very interesting story about this in the 22 March 2002 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune.
My thanks to Chad Milliner for letting me know about the article.
FBI Hires LDS Church Data Chief
– Dick Eastman
In the 27 March 2002 edition of this newsletter, I wrote about the FBI efforts to improve their databases used to track criminals. The agency consulted with some of The Church of Jesus-Chist of Latter-day Saints computer experts who manage the huge genealogy databases in Salt Lake City. You can read my article at: www.ancestry.com/library/view/columns/eastman/5471.asp.
One thing that amuses me is that several people wrote to me after that article was published, claiming that the article was not true. They said that that the FBI was not talking with the The Church computer experts and that the original articles on the wire services were unfounded. Well, somebody at the FBI obviously talked to at least one senior official of the The Church’s computer staff. This week, the FBI announced that Darwin A. John, formerly managing director of Information and Communications Systems at The Church, has been appointed to become the FBI's Chief Information Officer.
Since 1990, Darwin A. John set strategic direction for use of computer and communications technology worldwide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also helped lead creation of the church's very popular genealogy Family Search website at www.FamilySearch.org. Since appearing in 1999, that site has averaged 7 million to 8 million hits a day from people searching the 900 million names in the system.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said John brings a "demonstrated capability to achieve broad-based results in an area critical to the FBI's success, particularly at a time when the bureau is modernizing its information technologies while reorganizing and re-engineering and undergoing unprecedented change in its investigative mission and priorities."
Stephen Finnerty, president of the Society for Information Management, described John as "one of the most progressive leaders in the information systems industry," and said he expects him to make "valuable and outstanding contributions to the FBI, its mission, and the American people."
You can read the full story at a number of news sites, including: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,405017185,00.html
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.
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
********************************************************************
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.
-
Tim Gratz said:
If I remember my history correctly, it was Ben Franklin who was asked what kind of a government the founders had created. He replied: "A republic--if you can keep it."
America is a constitutional republic. It is NOT a democracy.
To the People of the State of New York:AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
Brent Crosby said:How can America be a Republic when its own party is more along the lines of the Democrats of the '70s? Couldn't America be a combination of all three: plutocracy, democracy, and a republic? If unholy rule over a body of people is your measure, then I'm not seeing your point. Maybe you could apply counter examples to a democracy, or to our modern day political landscape.
Hmm, yes. I should clarify by saying that we are only a de jure republic; thanks mainly to liberals and partly to conservatives, we are a de facto socialism. There are several ways to look at that.First, there's what we might call the de-Federalization of the political system. The dominant faction of the Founding Fathers preferred a Federal system -- that is, a weak central government with strong several States -- rather than the reverse, a national system -- a strong central government and weak States. The Federalist view was championed (among others) by Madison, the "architect of the Constitution," while the nationalist view was championed (among others) by Hamilton. The conflict between these two factions, and the resulting political disagreements which carried over into the early 19th century, need not concern ourselves here. What is more germaine is that the dominant view of how our nascent country should be run was that the United States of America should have its politics based primarily on the States rather than on the Federal system which tied them together. Ideally, the several States would be the essence, with the Union the afterthought.
Sadly, this situation does not obtain any longer. Thanks to Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression (mistakenly called the "Civil War") against the South, a precedent was set whereby the Union became more important than the States; this was a complete intellectual reversal of the concept on which this Union was founded, namely that the States are the most significant component of the American polity.
Now, thanks to Lincoln's unconstitutional acts of empire-building (which had nothing to do with slavery, and more to do with the 40% tax increase levied on the South by the North) rather than slavery (Lincoln never intended to free all black slaves, but merely those in the South for military purposes; read the actual Emancipation Proclamation sometime), like any tyranny the Federal government exists solely for its own sake. The goal of "saving the Union" was achieved, but only at the cost of destroying the American Republic. The Federal government has become the de facto primary unit of American politics; nowadays when people speak of "the government" they invariably mean the Federal government rather than their own State government.
This process was accelerated before FDR's time, when the concept of socialism was applied systematically to the American system. Socialism, or the suppression of the individual for the sake of the group (whether it be the majority, all society, or a group of a few people), became the standard American political theory, supplanting the rights of the individual. These socialists of the 1920s -- who may not have been the flaming Marxists of the 1960s, but still possessed the poisonous contempt for the individual which became common in FDR's time -- took it upon themselves to begin a grand experiment in the tyranny of the group. Prohibition was just the most famous tyrannical act to come out of this trend.
More subtle, but more damaging, was the systematic effort to transform the Federal system into a welfare system in which the government actively tries to "make things better" by legislating away economic depressions. This is an intricate point, but it deserves to be mentioned. In the 1920s, these neophyte socialists developed a Treasury system whereby the role of local banks in issuing interest loans was subverted, and the US government began arbitrarily setting interest loans regardless of the actual risk of the business involved. Before this change, a local bank would deal with a business and set a loan for the enterprise, giving it a high interest or low interest based on how risky the bank decided the enterprise is. After all, the bank should get some recompense for taking on a high-risk loan, if needs be. The Treasury system forestalled the decision-making ability of banks, and arbitrarily set all interest rates -- regardless of risk! Naturally, this meant that high-risk businesses which otherwise would not have gotten any money could now afford comparitively low rates on their loans; simply put, a great many enterprises were begun which should not have been started in the first place. A gigantic "bubble" was created of impetuous, reckless loaning and spending which had little to do with the actual market. (Compare this effect to the "dot-com bubble" of the late 1990s.) In short the US government had anaesthetized the loan industry from the up-and-down pains of the free market. To the short-sighted and superficial, this was heavenly; the economy was flush with new cash (loans, many of which were doomed to default), businesses were springing up everywhere, millionaires were created on the spot, and the Roaring '20s had begun. Like any expensive party however, the bill had to be paid. That bill was called in the day of the market crash that started the Great Depression. Socialism had created the Great Depression by those who had hoped to prevent depressions in the first place. The free market had been manipulated, and it had backfired; the free market cannot be governed successfully. Sadly, it would be clear that no one would learn this painful lesson.
The Great Depression was made worse by FDR's socialistic "New Deal," which was a series of measures designed to fix socialism by adding more socialism on top of it; the free market was strangled further by "creating" "new" "jobs" to put people to work, all on the government payroll. An economy's vigor cannot be measured by the growth of government jobs, however; quite the opposite, it should be measured by the growth of private-sector jobs. No one seriously bothered with this distinction. Like in Soviet Russia (which many top Democrats were beginning to openly admire), success was defined as the government putting as many people to work as possible. One can only assume that the socialists of the era would have been ecstatic if they had managed to put every American in the government workforce, as is the goal of every good communist.
The next phase of socializing of America was in the 1960s, with LBJ's "Great Society." Welfare in the modern sense was defined; now, the goal of government would no longer be to stay out of people's way, but to interfere with their lives for their own good. The free market was seen as something inherently evil, something which should be forestalled as much as possible in defense of the American citizenry.
It began with the hijacking of the Democrat party; radical Marxists gave themselves the scandalously deceptive title "liberals" and proceeded to turn a once-proud party into a party of insidiously un-American ideals. In a way, though, these "liberal" Marxists already saw the way paved for them. The American people had had half a century to prepare themselves for the open conversion from a capitalist economy to a socialist economy. Generations of political leaders, beginning with Lincoln, instituted measures which boldly undercut the American ideal of individualism, capitalism, and Federalism.
Politics, society, and economics are closely connected, at least in modern politics. The "liberals" believed that society could be "improved" only by "improving" the economy, according to the (to them) tried-and-true method of vigorous economic regulation by the government. "Liberals" naturally used politics to achieve these "socioeconomic" "gains." This process continued for several decades after LBJ, resulting in the thoroughly socialistic, highly taxed, highly regulated economy we have today. The American economy is strong despite the American government, not because of it. The Federal government -- which is in no wise "Federal" any longer, but national -- has usurped a great many economic powers unto itself. Thanks to Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ's efforts (among others), the Union now exists for its own sake, not for the sake of the States or their citizens. This economic process can mostly be blamed on modern "liberals" and their Democrat party (which exists for "liberals" the same way a host organism exists for its parasite). True, in the early 20th century such distinctions as "liberal" and "conservative" were more subtle and far less meaningful to modern persons; but there were socialists, people who generally felt that the "greater good," or "society," is more important than the selfish whims of the individual.
Sadly, this view obtains in modern "conservatives" as well. This humble student of politics has engaged in several passionate debates with "conservatives" about the nature of socialism versus individualism. It is clear that in regards to "social" issues such as gambling, prostitution, gay marriage, or drug use, conservatives are socialists: they invoke society as a justification to suppress individual rights on the grounds of making society more "moral." Whereas "liberals" invoke Marxist socialism to create what they see as economic improvements, "conservatives" invoke moral socialism to create what they see as societal improvements. Between the two, there is indeed little room for the individual. Both ideologies take it for granted that the individual can have his rights dispensed and revoked at the whim of the group -- whether the group in question is society, the majority, or even some group which is perceived to be oppressed, such as the "poor."
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.
********************************************************************
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.
-
And Nic, I agree that "what you think you KNOW may not be the case." I've encountered a lot of instances of that already...what I've been told as "fact" turned out to be fiction. That's why I raised the question...how are we gonna know the facts when we see them? There's already enough "reasonable doubt" out there to drive a person over the edge. So how does one discover what's real when so many of the principals are dead, or refuse to speak, or refuse to speak with clarity?
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.
*******************************************************************
"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.
Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by 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).
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