Terry Mauro

Plausible Denial is what initially lead me to The Spotlight and The Noontide Press.

I had a subscription to The Spotlight from 1992 - 1995, which is where I came across The Noontide Press, and was able to purchase "The Secret Team", at that time. It was located in Costa Mesa, CA. Victor Marchetti also broke the story on Operation Watchtower, in The Spotlight during the time I had subscribed to it. All roads leading to Bush, via John Hull's landing strip on his Costa Rican plantation. This story on Hull's landing strip, later appeared in an article in Harper's Magazine in 1994, as well.

It would also appear that he was expressing how difficult it would be to ever place this event directly back into the lap of those who originated it. Too many orchids and too much deception. In that regards, LHO is somewhat like the wasp. Unless one knows their orchids that well, it would be difficult to recognize which orchid the wasp actually lands on, stings, and pollinates, and which one he merely landed on for some unknown reason. With the direction in which you would appear to be headed, then I would assume that the Touro Infirmary death of William Burke, Director of Covert Operations, Central Intelligence Group, would have been of interest. As well as the death of the leader of the Flying Tigers/AVG Claire Chennault. Which of course connects us directly to none other than Mr. William Pawley, whose wife of course also graduated from Tulane (Newcomb College). Ever wonder exactly how it was that so many persons around the peripheral edge of LHO had been to china? And of course Pawley leads us directly to United Fruit. Ever wonder exactly why I posted the little issue of the Guatemala episode in New Orleans attempting to raise 1 million dollars with the attorney who frequently represented United Fruit? Also, what most are not aware of is the fact that south Louisiana provided many of the "Jedburg" team personnel for WWII. They were sought out due to their french language capability. Those who survived, returned home with training and capabilities which far exceeded what most were aware of. I do seem to recall that one named "Stuckey" was killed during the war. Wonder if he had any family close to New Orleans? Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "I do seem to recall that one named "Stuckey" was killed during the war." Just wondering if "Stuckey" was any relationship to the restaurant chain running from the Mason-Dixon line to Key West, via I-95? Kind of like those Burma Shave road-side ads, only culminating with "Eat At Stuckey's", two miles up the road. Loved the anecdote about the orchids. Things and places are never really what they seem, and all the world's a stage, or better yet, a greenhouse. Col. Prouty said they were "actors".

As have most. First, review the testimony of Dr. Humes when the coat of JFK was introduced into evidence. At this time, the coat had attached to it a "note'. I like to call it a "Note from Mom", actually it was my Grandma who I used to get to write those phoney notes to skip school in order to not miss the first hunting day of squirrel season; deer season; turkey season; watermelon season; whatever. The "Note" is now also one of those items which has been found missing from the National Archives. Nevertheless, the testimony of Dr. Humes will reveal the second hole, located just below the edge of the collar, in the coat of JFK. And, this hole penetrates the collar as well as the liner at an oblique tangent. It is the hole created by the third/last/final shot as the bullet passed through the slightly raised collar, exited and struck JFK at the edge of the hairline, with the back of the neck in virtually the horizontal position. Thereafter to continue on an approximately 12-degree downward angle into the skull of JFK approximately 2cm right and slightly above the EOP. Which by the way created the elongated entry wound into the skull of JFK. Thereafter, read Frazier's comments on the second hole and then we will will get down to the "real story" of the spectrographic examination of the clothing of JFK. NOT the hearsay evidence of "notes from mom" and what Frazier thought and reported. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello again, Mr. Purvis. I'd like to present to you a debate that took place between a fellow collaborator from Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's site and Dr. Kenneth Rahn, during the summer of 2001. I would like to hear your comments on it, if you would be so kind to go through it for me. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Mauro ******************************************************************** Chris (9/1/01 5:35 am) Reply <http://pub78.ezboard.com/ffletcherproutyfrm1.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=14.topic> Debating Assassination educator Ken Rahn Hi Everybody, I've been busy this summer but have still had time to participate in various arenas of the JFK case and thought I would share my correspondances with a Dr. Ken Rahn, who I mentioned before in the old forum as teaching a course on the JFK Assassination at the University of Rhode Island. He teaches this course as part of a "critical thinking" model in which his students are funneled toward a "LHO-could-have-easily-done-it-alone" conclusion. He has a website supporting his course located here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> Instead of an in-depth review, it appears to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review was as biased as anyone's based on what was shown in the "further thoughts" section of his course outline: 1. There is overwhelming physical evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. 2. There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved. 3. No other credible suspects, general or named, have emerged after 37 years of intensive investigation. Thus the exceedingly strong working hypothesis must be that Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. The logical and procedural errors of the critics and conspiracists are so clear and obvious that further discussion of conspiracy is no longer justified without solid new evidence. Given that no conspiracy has emerged in 37 years, there is no reason to expect the present situation to change (although it could at any time). Therefore the era of national soul-searching and angst that followed the JFK assassination and the distrust of the government it created were unnecessary and hurtful. The spotlight should have been turned inward on the critics rather than outward on the government. Recognizing these things, we are now ready to write the simple, clear, and true history of the assassination. Re: karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/...ughts.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Further_thoughts.html> Obviously, when the "teacher" puts statements like that into a course outline, the direction of that course has already been determined. As such, the students in the class already know what is necessary...though not necessarily correct...to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor's stated opinion would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that. Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated, confronted by the prestige of his professional standing. I believe we should hold our educators to high standards in their methodology. They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating a false history. And so, I decide to engage our esteemed Dr. Rahn in an evidence debate to see just how strongly he could hold up to a lowly alaskan wilderness guide in support of his university course objectives. ******************************************************************* Following is our email debate: 6/6/01 (9:25pm) Hi Mr. Rahn, My name is Chris Dolmar and I'm writing to you from the far south coast of Alaska. After studying the JFK event since about 15 when I saw a bootlegged copy of the Zapruder film shown on an early Geraldo Rivera tv show, I have personally come to the conclusion that the evidence surrounding CE 139 indicates that NOBODY, much less LHO could have performed the shooting skills required to accomplish the assassination as presented by the WC to the American people. WHAT THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ACTUALLY SHOWED: 1. The 2 sheriff's deputies who found a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was taken from the floor. 2. ALL identified it as a "7.65mm Mauser". Subsequent documents and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it that way. (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323) 3. CIA documents still identified it as a "Mauser", 4 days later. One of the officers, decorated deputy sheriff, Roger Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony before the Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had the word "MAUSER" stamped on the barrel. 4. Craig also told researchers that his WC testimony had been altered in 14 different places by WC counsel David Belin so that it appears "bland" in the 26 volumes. 5. Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also sold rifles while working for many years, in a sporting goods store and therefore, had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. 6. Police officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses. 7. The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this "problem" with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a "glance" at the weapon. 8. The tape recording of a news broadcast of November 22, 1963 on Dallas radio station K-BOX said: "Sheriff's deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty- five Mauser, a German-made Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three spent shells were found nearby." (CE 304) 9. Additionally, in his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins", Jim Garrison claims to have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day which he claims showed a police officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the 6th floor were missing from the FBI files on the Presidential assassination when presented to the WC. Those documents were: 1) DPD Lt. Carl Day's dictated memorandum on the weapon 2) Day's description to FBI S.A. Bardwell Odum 3) Odum's subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio 4) Constable Weitzman's original report to the FBI 5) DPD Detective C.N. Dhority's written report. The legal "chain of possession" of CE 139 was never properly established. The officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so. Neither identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally done some six hours later, at DPD Headquarters, after the weapon found had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly laid in the evidence room for several hours. What chain of possession that existed after that was again broken when the rifle was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., by FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain on the night of November 22nd, unaccompanied by any officer of the DPD. In 1963, even though threatening the President was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely an all too common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction, whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas Police officer to maintain the legal "chain of possession". The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal officers are very suspicious. This type of handling would have been questionable enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any trial of LHO. How fortunate they were that there was no trial. Despite all the controversy over the initial "misidentification" of the rifle, at no time did the WC show CE 139 to any of the Dallas law enforcement officers who found it and ask them, point blank, if CE 139 was the weapon that they had found. What they showed them were photographs, but not the weapon itself. Not one of those Dallas witnesses could positively state that the weapon in the photos was the weapon that they had found. Even today, you and I still can only see photographs of this infamous weapon at the National Archives. We cannot see nor measure the weapon itself. The paper bag found on the 6th floor showed no signs of any gunpowder residue nor any gun oil, and contained no verifiable fingerprints (a partial palm print that had some characteristics similar to Oswald's palm print was found. However, there were too few similarities for a legal match), according to the FBI examination conducted of it. The package's size was also too small to have contained CE 139, unless the rifle was broken down. (CE 1304) Next, when broken down, the weapon contained a number of sharp-edged parts which, logically, should have made some scratches, or tears in the paper, had it been in there. Not only were there no scratches or tears, they wasn't a single crease which the FBI could match to any part of CE 139. Basically, we find that there was no physical evidence that any gun had ever been inside the bag found on the 6th floor and alleged by the WC to have carried CE 139 from Irving, Texas to the TSBD that day. If the rifle was broken down for transport, its accuracy would have suffered further without the ability to be sighted-in after re-assembly . Military experts stated that a minimum of 10 shots would have been required, adjusting the scope after each, to re-sight any rifle for accurate shooting. Both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, the only people to have seen it, testified that the package LHO had in Frazier's car was no more than 26" in length, yet the longest part of CE 139, even when broken down was 34.8". (CE 1303) Frazier further testified that when Oswald laid the package in the back seat of the car, it took up less than half of the length of the seat. The back seat's total length was 62". Frazier also testified that when they arrived at work, Oswald took the package out of the back seat and, holding one end in the palm of his hand, tucked the other end under his arm. For the package Frazier saw to have contained CE 139, even broken down, would have required Oswald to have an arm length of over 36". Rather amazing for a man of 5' 9". (2 WCH 210-245) We see, therefore, that there was also absolutely no testimony corroborating the WCR conclusion about how Oswald allegedly got the rifle into the depository, either. How and why then was this conclusion drawn? While the Warren Commission Report used as evidence an FBI document (Dallas 89-43) which says that the FBI laboratory found the materials used to construct the paper bag entered into evidence to be consistent with materials found at the TSBD, and could have been constructed from them, researcher Livingstone in his book, "High Treason", shows another copy of that same said document which states that the materials were not similar. While there is no way to categorically determine which is the correct copy, there would appear to be no logical reason for the FBI to have revised the report to deny the similarities, then enter the incorrect one into evidence. However, if my belief that they altered evidence is correct, then changing the report from NOT SIMILAR, to SIMILAR, fits in quite nicely with that scenario. FBI tests of CE 139`s accuracy showed that the rifle was: 1) inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549), 2) carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560); [LHO was right-handed], and 3) unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, nor notated in any previous description of CE 139 (3 WCH Pg 440-445). Nothing resembling a shim was found at the TSBD, Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, or on his person, when arrested. During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military, or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 in the condition it was found, within the time frame established, and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle, and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else, crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.(3 WCH 390-430) In addition, the HSCA testimony of Firearms Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope: Mr. LUTZ: This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle. Mr. MCDONALD: Would you, in your opinion, classify it as an accurate scope? Mr. LUTZ: The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in, and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement, or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So, the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope. (HSCA Vol 1, pg 449) Why the HSCA experts did not use the real exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps, it was because the original examination by the FBI in 1963-1964 showed that CE 139 was inaccurate at 15 yards, or someone involved knew the shooting could not be duplicated using that weapon. Former HSCA Firearms Panel member Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that to his knowledge, no one had ever duplicated LHO's alleged shooting feats, using CE 139 in the condition it was found. Also, in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps sniper with combat experience in Vietnam, professional law enforcement officer, and world-class rifleman, states in his book, "Kill Zone", that even using his precise equipment loaded with matched rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place. It is very hard to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm St from the "sniper's window". Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way. In fact, efforts to duplicate the shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba, Israel, and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion: The shooting, as outlined by the Warren Commission, was virtually impossible! The time frames required were established by the FBI after the review and calculation of time between shots shown on the Zapruder film, also taking into consideration the time required to operate CE 139, and the view from the 6th floor. The HSCA findings concluded that only if Oswald had fired using open sights, could he have fired 3 shots accurately within the WCR time frames. No possible scenario that included any additional gunmen was ever considered, meaning all shots must have come from that rifle and during the designated time frames. DPD searches of Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, and his family's residence in Irving, failed to unearth any additional ammunition, or any cleaning supplies normally associated with the operation of a rifle. In fact, additional checks by agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, failed to find any evidence that either LHO, or Alec Hidell, had ever purchased any ammunition for the rifle, either. Yet, an FBI memorandum described the rifle, when presented to them, as being in "...a well-oiled condition...". Additional ammunition would have been needed to practice, and that same FBI memorandum, signed by Director J.Edgar Hoover himself, noted that an examination of the firing pin showed that "numerous" shots had been fired through CE 139. (CE 2974) Also, the three experts who first test-fired the rifle showed concern that the firing pin might break because it was rusted. (3 WCH 444) Ammunition isn't purchased one bullet at a time. The minimum would be a box of twenty. It would be inconsistent with the way LHO allegedly purchased the weapon for him to hide the purchase of the ammunition. And, rusted firing pins are not what one would consider suitable for a rifle being used in such a high profile political assassination...what if it broke on the first shot? FBI searches of every gun range in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area failed to come up with even a single shell casing that could be matched to CE 139. In all, literally millions of used casings were reviewed, and 13,000 possible Mannlicher-Carcano casings were recovered and compared. None ballistically matched CE 139. This lack of physical evidence came despite the testimony of several witnesses who told stories of a man, allegedly LHO, practicing at various ranges with a high-powered rifle, and being very visible doing so...in some cases going out of his way to draw attention to himself. The fact is, that the FBI could find absolutely no physical evidence which showed that LHO had ever purchased ammunition, or practiced firing CE 139. Yet again, in spite of this lack of evidence, not only did the WCR conclude that he had, but they also concluded that he became so good at shooting that he could make shots that documented experts could not. The length of CE 139 and the length of the rifle depicted in the ad allegedly used to order it, from the February, 1963 issue of American Rifleman Magazine, are significantly different. The weapon depicted in that ad, a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm Italian Carbine, model # C20-T750, is 36" long, assembled. This is the weapon reportedly shipped, on March 20, 1963 to: A. Hidell PO Box 2915 Dallas, Texas The length of CE 139 is 40.2" assembled and it is model # C20-750. Representatives of Kleins were unable to adequately explain these differences. (CE 773) Also, the FBI records of the length of the rifle they tested show 3 different figures, none of which was 36". (NOTE: the author owns a Mannlicher-Carcano of the same model as CE 139. Its length is 40.2") Klein's was also able to state how it was paid for (postal money order), when it was deposited, AND they were able to produce both the envelope it was received in, and the stamp used to mail the order to them! While the serial number of CE 139---C2766---was the same as that of the weapon shipped by Kleins to A. Hidell, the FBI discovered that, due to the manufacturing techniques used by Italy during World War II, this serial number was not necessarily unique to only one such weapon. In fact, it is possible that as many as 5 different rifles could have had the serial number C2766. The FBI eventually traced another Carcano, serial number C2766, to Canada. In addition, Scottish researcher, and friend Bill MacDowall, has done significant research in this area and has traced the rifle mailed by Kleins to A. Hidell, all the way back to its manufacture. He has found evidence that ALL identifying markings were supposedly removed prior to Kleins purchase of the weapon. Bill has written an extensive paper on this weapon and has made it available to be posted exclusively on this site. While evidence showed that the rifle from Kleins was shipped to the post office box of LHO, no one knows for sure who actually took possession of it, on its arrival. For Oswald to have received it, the Dallas Post Office would have needed to violate Postal Regulations since it was addressed to "Hidell", and it was Oswald's PO box. Amazingly, the FBI was able to track this weapon to the retailer (Kleins) even before S.A. Vince Drain actually took possession of it at 11:30 PM, that first night. This is truly amazing since, as late as 9:00 PM on the night of November 22nd, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, was still calling it a "Mauser", and other than the serial number, there was nothing to go on to search for its owner. That serial number was only worthwhile if the FBI knew the manufacturer, and in this case even that would not have been enough, since more than one Mannlicher-Carcano had that serial number. Yet, by 11:00 PM, government agents were already at Kleins to look up the purchase and shipping orders, despite the fact that the retailer would have been next-to-last on the possession time-line. Few of the eyewitnesses who testified that they saw a gun firing, from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, described anything similar to CE 139. Several felt that the weapon was an automatic rifle because of the speed of the firing, and those few witnesses who testified as to seeing a scope mounted on the rifle they saw, did not see the rifle actually being fired. There is no notation, anywhere within the twenty-six volumes of evidence that either, the DPD or FBI, ever tested CE 139 to see if it had been fired recently... they simply assumed that it had been fired that day. This, despite the fact that no one testified to smelling gunpowder, in or around, the "sniper's nest", and with no notations that forensic examinations of the boxes, showed any traces of gunpowder residue. Documents concerning what was recovered from the 6th floor all state that one live round was in the chamber when the rifle was found. One live round was also turned over to the FBI. The problems with this are generally overlooked. They are: 1) None of the witnesses who testified as to seeing the shots fired, spoke of seeing the shooter eject a round after the fatal head shot, thus meaning a spent cartridge, not a live round should have been in the chamber. 2) If the shooter did eject the fired round, why would he do it after moving away from the window? 3) And if he did so, why were all 3 casings allegedly recovered together? If it was LHO who did this, we must factor in the additional delay that ejecting the final spent round, for reasons unknown, would have on his ability to wipe the gun clean of prints, hide it, and still be on the first floor no more than 90 seconds after firing the fatal shot. Do you have any opinions, input, feedback, or any other comments relating to these issues concerning CE 139 as I have expressed them? Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ***************************************************************** Rahn's response: 6/11/01 (11:03am) Dear Chris, Thanks for your note. I just returned from two weeks of traveling and found it last night. I do indeed have much to say about your views, but I don't know when I will get time enough. Basically, you are emphasizing the apparent negatives and avoiding all the positive physical evidence that shows that the assassination was an easily doable feat. I urge you to take more time on the sites maintained by John McAdams and me. More later, but I don't know quite when. Best regards, Ken Rahn Kenneth A. Rahn Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, USA ***************************************************************** My 2nd email to Rahn: 6/28/01 (2:14am) Hello Mr. Rahn, No doubt you are a busy man as I am, but I thought I would maintain our correspondance regarding CE 139. I think as was outlined in my initial email to you, that the ability of THE WEAPON itself, is in serious question as to whether it (CE 139) could have been remotely mechanically capable of accomplishing the accuracy attributed to it by the SBT & WC, the shooting skills of the alleged assassin, notwithstanding. The only way the assassination "could have been an easily doable feat", as you stated to me previously, is if LHO had acted like the Lone Gunman that the WC portrays him as, and taken the Best Percentage shot he had - which was a straight away, dead-on, head shot at Kennedy - as the limousine was traveling down Houston Street - almost straight at him - before it took the dog-leg left turn onto Elm Street. But, being that LHO was, allegedly, using a rifle (CE 139) which the FBI determined was: 1. INACCURATE at 15 yards. 2. Had a scope mounted for a LEFT-handed shooter (LHO was a RIGHT-handed shooter). 3. And, was missing 2 metal shims that further compromised its accuracy. 4. That LHO, the lone gunman, STILL passed up "The Perfect Shot" on Houston Street, for a tree-filtered, going-away, MUCH lower-percentage shot, on Elm Street? 5. Why did LHO pass on the EASY Houston Street shot? 6. - and let's not debate the difficulty of the Houston & Elm Street shots: a. The Houston Street shot would have been, BY FAR, the EASIEST shot for ANY shooter in the, alleged, "sniper's nest" of the TSBD~especially a "lone nut assassin", who (in his mind) would have known that ONLY HE would have a chance to kill the president. b. Knowing that as a lone assassin, in your opinion, Mr. Rahn, why didn't LHO take the high percentage, easy shot on Houston Street? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's response: 6/28/01 (5:28am) Chris, I cannot pretend to get inside Oswald's head. I can only say that the shot on Houston Street has a couple of obvious disadvantages: The Secret Service agents would be looking right at him. And, Gov. Connally would have blocked much of Kennedy's body. I think I also heard something about the metallic "rollbar" blocking something as well, but I can't really remember. I believe you are overstating the inaccuracy of the rifle. But, your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle, to the exclusion of all others. We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically. In general, I think that it is an error to start asking "Why?", too soon. First, we settle what happened, and only then do we worry about why. Ken Rahn ****************************************************************** My Followup email to Rahn: 8/25/01/ (2:53pm) Hello Mr. Rahn, It's been a couple of months since we corresponded. This is the biggest push of the year, business-wise, for me and thus my infrequent exchanges. I thought I would continue our correspondance regarding some of the issues you last mentioned. You said: " But your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle to the exclusion of all others." From what I can ascertain, allegedly, no human matter of any kind was found on CE 399 despite the necessary assumption that it had caused numerous wounds, nor was it recovered from either victim's body. It, therefore, could not be scientifically linked to either, Kennedy or Connally. In fact, in what appears to be an effort to hide this, the WC leads FBI S.A. Robert Frazier through contradictory testimony about CE 399. (WCH 3, Pgs 228-244) He finally states, however, that even under microscopic examination, no blood nor human tissue was found. No striation marks (tiny scratches) were found by the FBI on the bulbous, undamaged nose of CE 399, despite allegedly going through JFK's jacket, shirt, possibly nicking his tie, JBC?s jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket, jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket and pants. Striation marks, around the nose, are common even when bullets are fired only into cotton for ballistic comparison purposes. Because of this, CE 399 cannot scientifically be determined to have gone through either man's clothes, much less both. No traces of copper were found on JFK's tie. This is very inconsistent with the copper traces found in the other clothes and/or wounds of both men. CE 399 is copper jacketed. If traces of copper were found on JFK's suit (entrance), and in JBC's wounds (entrance and exit), logic would dictate that there should be traces on the tie (JFK exit), IF they were caused by the same bullet, or even the same type of bullet. In addition: The testimony of every one of the autopsy doctors and the physician who treated Connally at Parkland, stated that none of them could believe that CE 399 could have caused all the wounds because of its "pristine" condition and because too much metal was removed or remained in the victims. Their testimony on this point was unequivocal. (2 WCH 374-375, 382; 4 WCH 109, 113-114) Dr. Shaw's testimony about the wound in JBC's thigh (4 WCH 109-135) is extremely important yet, almost always overlooked. For the SBT theory to hold up, the wound to Connally must have been made by the complete bullet (CE 399) which later "fell out". The wound must therefore show these characteristics. Shaw's testimony, while ambiguous on this point, appears to describe the wound as being made by a fragment, not a complete bullet. CE 399 is not a fragment, and the largest fragment that could have come from it would have been no more than 3 grains, hardly large enough to cause a treatable wound. Additionally, Dr. Shaw has told researcher Livingstone that the thigh wound was indeed caused by a fragment, larger than 5 grains. The Parkland Hospital report on Connally (CE 392), appears to corroborate this point, and Dr. Shaw again identified the thigh wound as being made by a fragment in the NOVA documentary, "Who Killed President Kennedy?". This seriously undermines the theory that CE 399 fell out of JBC's leg while he was on the stretcher, and that CE 399 caused all his wounds. In addition, fragments too large to have come from CE 399 show up in X-rays of Connally. Parkland nurse, Audrey Bell, described these fragments as, "Anywhere from 3-4 millimeters in length by a couple of millimeters wide." (Dallas Morning News interview, 4/1/77) Finally, Dr. Charles Gregory, who worked on Connally, testified (6 WCH 122-123) that he saw multiple fragments that were large enough for him to determine their color. Darrel Tomlinson, the Parkland hospital employee who recovered the bullet from a stretcher in the hall of the emergency room, required much cross-examination by Commission counsel Arlen Specter before he would say that it was even possible that the stretcher in question was the one that carried John Connally. His initial, and vigorously maintained testimony was that the bullet he found came from a stretcher that had not been used by either, Connally or Kennedy (6 WCH 130-134). He has stood by that contention ever since. (NOVA, November 15, 198?) Neither Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen, nor Secret Service Chief J.J. Rowley, the first four people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher, could later identify CE 399 as that bullet, leaving open the possibility that another bullet was originally found and CE 399, a ballistic match to CE 139, was substituted to implicate LHO. This would have been possible, since many hours passed before the proper chain of possession was established. (CE 2011) But you fail to backup your statement, "We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically.", with any available supporting source references concerning this issue. CE 567 and CE 569---Two bullet fragments, one from the front of a bullet, the other from the rear of a bullet. They were supposedly found, on the night of November 22-23, 1963, inside the President's limousine while it was being searched at the White House Garage. Secret Service agents, allegedly, found both of these fragments on the floor, near the front seat. Each fragment was ballistically linked to CE 139, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.--- However, I find NO source references concerning this evidence anywhere that they could be linked, in any fashion, to any of the other fragments removed from either victim, nor could they be scientifically linked to either victim. Please list official source references for me to review concerning this issue. So, as can be seen, there is NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY, and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, to support the KEY WCR conclusion that: "All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all the wounds." I have spent some time browsing your website, Dr. Rahn, and I couldn't help but notice that at the bottom of your 1st page, you state: "My JFK course at the University of Rhode Island takes this academic approach. Each year it enlightens a significant fraction of the students who take it, often with striking results. That is also the goal of this web site - enlightenment though proper academic procedures. I welcome any and all reactions from readers, and will post them for all to see." When I went to view your "Reactions from Readers" link, I was disappointed to see the most recent exchange of messages was posted from Aug 30, 2000 -almost a year ago - and thought I would suggest you update your link to that page, perhaps starting with our exchange. I think visitors, to that particular link on your site, would enjoy seeing that debates over differences of opinions (and, on reaching critical-thinking conclusions) on issues surrounding this case, can be discussed in a courteous and respectful manner, even between a renowned university professor and a simple Alaskan wilderness guide, and judge for themselves which one of us is displaying true critical-thinking skills over the issues being debated. Thank you for taking time to debate these issues with me. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's last reply: 8/25/01 (8:00pm) Chris, Please understand that I didn't let, "Replies from Readers" go because I wanted to. It was a casualty of general workload, including preparing the big monograph on NAA, which was a huge undertaking but very important to the JFK case. Also, the kinds of messages you write, with many questions and weak premises, take hours to answer properly. I seldom have that amount of time to spare these days. Lastly, if you are implying that I am not thinking critically in my class and my writings, I am out of this discussion immediately. I will discuss things, but I will not be put under the gun. Ken Rahn ************************************************************ And my most recent reply to Rahn: 8/28/01 (5:03am) Good Morning Mr. Rahn, I just finished reading your reply to my last email to you. I did not mean to put you on the defensive, and had thought that according to your WORLD WIDE WEBSITE that you defined your course analysis of the JFK as an objective one. Oh yes, Dr. Rahn, I have spent a considerable amount of my leisure time examining your site, and have thus directed my own VERY OBJECTIVE queries to you regarding THE EVIDENCE in a courteous, albeit, professional manner, as you might review throughout our correspondances. Your last response does you no justice as far as confronting the issues I brought forth backed up with solid, supporting WC, and/or HSCA testimony and evidence. "weak premises"????? Are you accusing me of providing false source references to you concerning the issues we have been debating? Please elaborate and don't try to tell me it would take hours, as I drafted my email to you in less than one hour, referencing everything with which you've confronted me concerning the issues I've brought forth to you with WC, and/or HSCA recorded testimony/evidence. In most of my emails I have not asked questions, simply provided the FACTS. If I asked you for source references regarding your unsupported replying statements to me - you should have been able to reference them, and cut & pasted them into your reply emails to me in a matter of minutes. After all, you're an acknowledged expert on the case and happen to have the ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY of providing AN OBJECTIVE presentation of the assassination events to numerous generations of our impressionable youth, some of whom may one day become leaders in various fields in our country. I waded through your very dated, "Reactions From Readers", page and enjoyed it very much. But, am I willing to bet (and, to be honest with you, I'm not a wagering man) that OUR CORRESPONDENCES will never see the light of day on any "Reactions From Readers" page on your website because you CANNOT (and SO FAR REFUSE) to refute ANY of the issues I have confronted you with in an OBJECTIVE way that would do justice to your website statement: "I can state with surety, and will demonstrate in the coming months, that anyone in command of the core physical data, and the principles of critical thinking, can circumscribe the right answer to the assassination in a matter of minutes." BUT YOU TOLD ME it would take HOURS to answer my questions???? I didn't really pose many questions to you, JUST FACTS, that you for one reason or another, REFUSE to refute. WHY? For example, (from our last correspondance): "But you fail to backup your statement: 'We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments, chemically.', with any available supporting source references concerning this issue." Is this an issue you can't support with any verifiable source references? C'mon DR. Rahn, you're an educator of this case - BACK IT UP, OR DON'T TELL ME my "premises" are "weak". When you take on the responsiblity of educating college students (WHO ARE PAYING YOU TO BE OBJECTIVE) then at least assume that responsibility, OBJECTIVELY, as you CLAIM you are. Your defensive attitude reeks of an official who thinks his "credentials" automatically enable him to preach his "gospels" in a manner that is unquestionable. Please, OBJECTIVELY, respond to my very ACCURATE source references concerning the FEW issues we have debated, in a professional manner, so that I may ponder ALL my "weak premises". Thank you for taking time to consider my statements. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ From: Chris Dolmar To: Kenneth A. Rahn 8/28/01 (5:35am) Dear Dr. Rahn, I thought I would add a list of "objective" source references concerning various issues of this case for you to review. Although, they are manied and varied, as an objective historian of the case, they merit review. Sources and Notes: Oswald: Michael Benson, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination" (New York: Citadel Press, 1993), pp. 124, 329-352; John M. Newman, "Oswald and the CIA" (Carroll & Graf, 1995) Paul Brancato, "Coup d'etat" illustrated card set (Forestville, California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 1, 7, 10. Although we often assume that most of the American public initially accepted the lonegunman scenario, some of the following source references show that this was not necessarily the case. Public doubt: Paul B. Sheatsley and Jacob J. Feldman, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public", National Opinion Research Center, [stanford University Press, 1965] (a large majority expressing doubt over Oswald's guilt). For sources of public opinion for the period Nov. 1963 through Feb. 1977, see: "Studies of Public Reactions," items 1673-1714, DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone, "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979" [Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 198 pp. 174-177; hereafter cited as Guth and Wrone 174-177.] It's also interesting to note that on Sunday, Nov. 24, 1963, soon after Oswald had been shot, Gordon McClendon, owner of Dallas radio station KLIF, reported the following from Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, where 40,000 spectators were attending the Dallas Cowboys-Cleveland Browns football game: "People seem to think that the Dallas Police Department really had the wrong man, or that Oswald was being held for want of a better suspect...No one here that we've talked to -- taxi drivers, hotel employees, the various people we've had an opportunity to be around since we arrived here yesterday afternoon -- no one really thought that Oswald was the guilty party." ("The Fateful Hours: a Presentation of KLIF News in Dallas," Capitol Records, 1964; reissued on audiotape by KLIF, 1993.) For sources of public opinion just before and after the release of the Oliver Stone film; "JFK", see: Kenneth Auchincloss, "Twisted History," Newsweek Dec. 23, 1991, p. 46, and Ted Gest and Joseph Shapiro, "JFK: The Untold Story of the Warren Commission," U.S. News & World Report Aug. 17, 1992, p. 29. No "credible" evidence: Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) p. 374; hereafter cited as R 374. Official doubt: Chairman Warren: William M. Blair, "Warren Commission Will Ask Mrs. Oswald to Identify Rifle Used in the Kennedy Assassination," New York Times Feb. 5, 1964, p. 19; Richard Bartholomew discussion with Clint Richmond, Mar. 5, 1997; Commissioners Russell, Cooper and Boggs: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies [senate Report 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, Final Report, Book V] p. 80; cited in Bernard Fensterwald, "Coincidence or Conspiracy" (New York: Zebra Books, 1977) pp.74-75 (hereafter cited as Fensterwald 74-75); Edward Jay Epstein, "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (New York: Viking, Jun. 1966) pp. 149-50, (Bantam, Oct. 1966) p. 122; see also Fensterwald 86, 91, 96, 99; Commissioner McCloy: Hearings Before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. XI (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979) note 11 at p. 14; hereafter cited as 11 HH 14 n.11; see also Fensterwald 86; Griffin statements: Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, "The Declassification of Dealey Plaza: After Thirty Years, A New Disclosure Law At Last May Help To Clarify the Facts of the Kennedy Assassination," South Texas Law Review, Vol. 34:407, Oct. 1993; later published in "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" (ARCA), The Fourth Decade, Special Edition, 1994, pp. 411-12 n.8; hereafter cited as Sanders and Zaid 411-12 n.8; President Johnson: Walter Cronkite interview, CBS News, broadcast on Apr. 25, 1975 (President Johnson's doubt); see also Fensterwald 76, 124; FBI policy: Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, v. V) p. 99 ; cited hereafter as 5H 99 (Hoover?s policy); see also Sanders and Zaid, p. 412 n.11. Evidence problems: Robert Sam Anson, "They've Killed the President!" (New York: Bantam, 1975) p. 356; hereafter cited as Anson 356; Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993) pp. 58, 60-61, 69; hereafter cited as Scott 58, 60-61, 69; Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew, "The Gun that Didn't Smoke" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 19, November-December 1997); Karen Gullo, "No JFK Shirt Material on Bullets," Associated Press, January 21, 2000, (AP-NY-01-21-00 1120EST, www.wire.ap.org/); <http://www.wire.ap.org/);> Joe Backes, "Backes responds to NARA's blundered test report, and Gullo's AP piece" (self published critique, January 21, 2000, 19:32:42 EST); Charles E. O'Hara, "Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation" (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas Books, 1956, 1970, 2nd ed., 2nd printing) pp. 5-6, 30, 67, 69, 80, 197, 199, 438, 450, 493, 562, 575, 681, 684-85, 687; hereafter cited as O'Hara with page number(s). As if speaking to the crime-scene investigators of the JFK assassination, O'Hara wrote the following in a brief preface to his second edition: "On review, however, it would appear that insufficient attention had been given to the role of the investigator in establishing the innocence of persons falsely accused. It was thought that this aspect of investigation was too obvious to stress; that the continued insistence on objectivity and professionalism in the investigator's conduct should meet this requirement. After all, the process of establishing innocence is hardly separable from the task of detecting the guilty. One does not, that is to say, prove guilt by the method of exhaustion." (O'Hara vii) See also: Walt Brown, Ph.D.,"The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald" (Carroll & Graff, 1994). "Two Oswalds": John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee," A lecture by John Armstrong, including text and documents; Introduction by Jim Hargrove (Self published, 199 100 pgs.; Deb Riechmann, "Tape: Call on JFK wasn't Oswald," Associated Press, Nov. 21, 1999, 1246EST; Joe Nick Patoski, "The Two Oswalds," Texas Monthly magazine, November 1998, pp. 135, 160. Conflicting single bullet theories: Warren Commission: Sanders and Zaid 410-12 n.8; House Committee: Guth and Wrone xxvii-xxx; American Bar Association: Gerald Posner, "Case Closed" (New York: Random House, 1993) p. 317, 326,-35, 474, 477, 478-79; hereafter cited as Posner with page number(s) (Posner's theory is taken from the American Bar Association Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald prosecution single bullet theory. It was presented uncritically and without credit to the A.B.A. by Posner. The entire, unabridged transcript of the 1992 American Bar Association's two-day mock trial presentation: "The United States v. Lee Harvey Oswald" can be found in American Jurisprudence "Trials" Volume 56, published by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing). JFK and Vietnam: L. Fletcher Prouty, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1992); John M. Newman, "JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue and the Struggle for Power" (New York, NY, 1992), CIA - Oil industry & Wall Street connections: Darwin Payne, "Initiative in Energy: Dresser Industries, Inc. 1880-1978" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), Appendix C; Donald Gibson, "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994) The Assassination and Academic History: Michael L. Kurtz (is a Professor of History at Southeastern Louisiana University and has taught a course on the assassination for several decades), "Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian?s Perspective"(University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 2nd ed); Kenneth A. Rahn, "The Academic JFK Assassination Website": karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html<http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> which supports the University of Rhode Island's Political Science course: "The JFK Assassination." The Assassination in the Media: Dr. George Michael Evica produces a weekly half-hour radio program on the assassination and related matters, "Assassination Journal," which is broadcast by the University of Hartford's radio station WWUH. It is the Longest-Running Public Affairs Program in the United States. Live webcasts are broadcast every Tuesday from 12noon-12:30pm EST & repeated(sameday)from 8:30-9:00pm EST at: uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/<http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/> The program focuses mainly on the JFK assassination, but has covered coups, murders, and mysteries such as TWA 800, the Gulf War Syndrome, and the failed war on drugs. Dr. Evica is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Hartford, Connecticut. He has been interested in the JFK assassination from its inception. He is the author of one book, "And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence And Analysis In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy," published in 1978 by the University of Hartford. For several years he was Editor of "Assassination Chronicles", published by JFK Lancer, Inc., in Dallas, Texas. During the last decade, he has published several articles and has lectured at many JFK conferences. Len Osanic, "Black Ops Radio", webcast live: Thurdays, 6pm PST / 9pm EST Call in... 1 604 525- 4167, see: www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm <http://www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm> Misc. Assassination-related topic sources: David G. Armstrong, "Where Was George?," Austin Chronicle, February 28, 1992, pp. 20-22; Richard Bartholomew, "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy" (self-published manuscript, 1993, p. 63; Fair Play Magazine, Issue 17, July-August 1997). Malcolm Wallace Fingerprint: John Kelin, "JFK Breakthrough?", (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 23, July-August 1999 ; "A. Nathan Darby's Affidavit" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 24, September-October, 1999; Barr McClellan, "Mac Wallace Update: Statement Regarding Print Evidence" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 28, May-June 1999). And finally, a couple of notes to conclude with: Let's consider that a bullet fired from the 6th floor window of TSBD entered the back of JFK's head and killed him. The building in question was horizontally located to the President's rear, while the 6th floor of that building was considerably, vertically above the President's head. Therefore, any such bullet must have entered the President's head from above and behind. That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President's injuries were published at the time, but the Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) did provide drawings (which can also be found in James H. Fetzer's, Ph.D. [editor] "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK", p 38, Catfeet Press, 199. Since these illustrations are published in the Warren Report, we must assume they are official and accurate portrayals of the President's injuries. The drawings of the head wound do therefore, appear to show a trajectory from above and behind, as the official account requires. In what I consider to be a solid study of the most basic evidence in this case by Stewart Galanor for his work "Cover-Up" (Kestrel Books, 199, he has juxtaposed the official WC drawing with frame 312 of the Zapruder film, which the WC itself regarded as the instant before the fatal head shot incident to frame 313, with the following result: when the images of the WC head wound drawing and Zapruder frame 312 are super-imposed over each other and the President's head is properly positioned, the WC's own drawing displays an upward rather than downward trajectory. If the official WC drawing of the injury to the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President's head wound was sustained from a hit from above and behind cannot be true. The Zapruder film itself confirms this. Let's also consider that the bullets that hit JFK & JBC were fired by LHO using a high-powered rifle, which the WC also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. The President's death certificates, The Warren Report, articles published in the Journal of the AMA, as well as other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high velocity missiles. (Some of these articles are reprinted in Fetzer's, "Assassination Science") The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only weapon that LHO is alleged to have used to kill the President, but the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon: its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 fps indicates that it qualifies as a medium to low velocity weapon. This issue is especially noteworthy, because the extensive and severe damage sustained by JFK's skull and brain, could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind. The ammunition that LHO is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round which is supposed to have been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears as CE 399. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but pass through the body leaving a fairly clean, small wound, as far as bullet wounds go. I In other words, this type of ammo does not explode on impact. Yet, if you examine the lateral cranial X-ray of the President's head, it reveals an obvious and definitive pepper-like display pattern of metallic debris which classically exhibits the effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind LHO was alleged to have used. The axis of the debris in the above mentioned X-ray also appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley's, Ph.D. "The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries", The Third Decade (March 1993) pp 1-15, in David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. research on the X-rays published in James Fetzer's "Assassination Science"(199, in his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in his present study of the medical evidence. The major fatal trauma the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high velocity weapons. Any comments? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ******************************************

I'm sorry, Mr. Purvis, but I believe the assassination, as well as the cover up, go much further up the ladder than your southern aristocracy. There were many factions attempting to oust Kennedy with their various agendas in mind. Oil? Follow the cobblestone road from Texas to Wall Street, where the granddaddy of oil himself, Rockefeller, had been holding court for a century. Where corporate law firms, such as Sullivan and Cromwell [how do you spell, DULLES?] became legal mouthpieces for the Houses of Finance, making possible the negotiations for the present-day mergers of such houses as MORGAN-CHASE. Do you smell the scent of MONEY, yet? How about the names: NORTHRUP-GRUMMOND, GENERAL DYNAMICS, HUGHES, BELL, MARTIN-MARIETTA? Do any of these names ring a BELL to you, Mr. Purvis? How about MILSPECS? I do believe that was a word with which you could commonly link those companies, as in CONTRACTS, gov. Not to mention whatever funds may have been necessary to cover up, both past and present transgressions and coup d'etats, implemented and deployed during the quest for Manifest Destiny in SEA of the 1950's and 1960's, as well as opening the door to further incursions into the Central Americas, and Middle East, in the 70's, 80's, 90's, on into the present millenium. Money talks, bulls**t walks, Mr. Purvis.

How Cafta Passed House by 2 Votes By Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times Friday 29 July 2005 "Once again, the floor of the House of Representatives resembled the set of 'Let's Make a Deal,' " Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. Washington - It was just before midnight on Wednesday when Representative Robin Hayes capitulated. Mr. Hayes, a Republican whose district in North Carolina has lost thousands of textile jobs in the last four years, had defied President Bush and House Republican leaders by voting against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or Cafta. But the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, told him they needed his vote anyway. If he switched from "nay" to "aye," Mr. Hayes recounted, Mr. Hastert promised to push for whatever steps he felt were necessary to restrict imports of Chinese clothing, which has been flooding into the United States in recent months. As it turned out, the switch by Mr. Hayes was decisive. Within a few minutes, the House approved the trade pact by the paper-thin margin of two votes, 217 to 215. The pact would eliminate most trade barriers between the United States and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. The cliffhanger House vote was one of the most wrenching in Congress this year, and it highlighted the messy compromises that were necessary to overcome deep antagonism in many quarters toward trade-opening agreements. The restrictions Mr. Hastert promised could come soon. Within the next 10 days, the Bush administration is expected to rule on whether to impose import quotas on Chinese sweaters, wool trousers, bras and other goods. Mr. Hastert "said to me, 'If you vote with me, we'll do everything we need to do in your district to help with jobs,' " Mr. Hayes recalled. Democrats charged Republicans with buying votes and forcing members to vote against their consciences. But Bush administration officials said the ultimate goal was one of high principle: an opening of the United States to greater competition and engagement with poorer countries in its own backyard, a liberation from trade barriers that would benefit Americans as well as their neighbors. "This became much bigger than Cafta, because it became a political issue," said Rob Portman, the United States trade representative. "It was important to our position as the global leader on trade, so we had to fight back, and to fight back meant being very aggressive, explaining why it was good." Trade agreements have almost always been difficult to pass, because any reduction in barriers provokes intense opposition from unions and industries that would face new competition. But the Central American trade pact became a litmus test for both parties, a precedent for both the opportunities and dangers of freer international trade. In economic terms, the Central American trade pact will have a negligible impact on the United States. About 80 percent of the exports from those countries to the United States were already duty-free, and the total trade volumes are tiny: American exports to the six countries - about $17 billion a year - are about equal to the annual global exports of New Jersey. Supporters of the trade pact said it was the principles at stake, a reaffirmation and an expansion of the much bigger North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 that linked the United States, Mexico and Canada. Like Nafta, the Central American free trade pact will eliminate most barriers to trade in goods and services and most barriers to investment. It will give American companies tough new legal rights to enforce patents and copyrights in other member countries, and it may give some pharmaceutical companies even greater protection against generic drugs in Central America than they have in the United States. But labor unions and their Democratic allies charge that the pact offers strong backing to corporations while offering little additional protection to low-wage workers in Central America. As a result, they contend, it will encourage American companies to shift more jobs to those countries. Whatever the economic merits, the vote on Wednesday night made it clear that the political appeal of the trade agreement was low. Only 15 Democrats supported the measure. And despite intense pressure from President Bush and House Republican leaders, 27 Republicans voted against the deal; many others badly wanted to do so. The biggest opposition among Republicans came from textile producing states in the south, sugar-producing states like Louisiana and Idaho and old-line manufacturing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for almost a full hour, in violation of the normal 15-minute time limit. They spent much of that time wrestling with about 10 rebellious but "undecided" Republicans, pleading and pressuring one after another to vote for the agreement. One of the strangest votes was by Representative Charles H. Taylor, Republican of North Carolina, who had vowed to vote against the pact because of his concerns for textile workers. But as the minutes ticked by, Mr. Taylor was one of only two members recorded as not voting. By not voting, he gave Republicans a two-vote victory rather than a one-vote margin. But on Thursday, Mr. Taylor insisted that there had been an error in the electronic voting system and that he had indeed voted against the measure. "I voted NO," Mr. Taylor announced in a terse statement on Thursday, saying the House clerk's written log showed his vote and that he would seek to have the vote registered as a "no." Democrats, who have already lined up a potent challenger to Mr. Taylor for the next election, accused him of trying to have it both ways. "He seemed to find time to vote for procedural motions and legislation that had nothing to do with North Carolina," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "but he couldn't seem to figure out how to squeeze in the time to vote against a trade deal that could cost North Carolina thousands of jobs." But business groups, including even some parts of the textile industry, lobbied fiercely in favor of the trade pact. The National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau Federation all supported the agreement and pushed hard. One Republican who agonized over the vote was Representative Mark Foley of Florida, whose district includes some of the biggest sugar producers in the country. Mr. Foley, a member of the House leadership team responsible for lining up votes, supported the bill even though he staunchly opposed the pact because it would allow higher sugar imports. "It was difficult, a gut-wrenching night," Mr. Foley said on Thursday. President Bush called him about 8:20 p.m. Wednesday to plead for his vote, he said, and Republican leaders had already made it clear that they would punish the sugar industry in the next farm bill if they managed to defeat the trade pact. "If the administration thinks that sugar brought about the demise of this, there would have been hell to pay in the farm bill," Mr. Foley said. "This was somewhat of a vote for the survival of my constituents." Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, accused Republican leaders of trading anything they had to get the votes they needed. "Once again, the floor of the House of Representatives resembled the set of 'Let's Make a Deal,' " Ms. Pelosi said Thursday. "What was the cost to the US taxpayer for the president, with all of his power and all of his influence at his disposal, what was the cost to US taxpayers of his very slim margin?" The full answer will not be known for some time. Opponents of the trade pact said Republicans lured many lawmakers by earmarking billions of dollars for pet projects in a $286 billion highway spending bill. The House and Senate conferees said they had reached agreement on the overall transportation bill, but as of Thursday night they had not made any details public. ------- Jump to today's TO Features: Today's TO Features -------------- Military Recruiters Teaching High School Classes-Hispanics New Target of Hate Groups-Frist Breaks with Bush on Stem-Cell Bill- Energy Bill Weakens Nuclear Non-Proliferation Two Shot-Crossing Mexican Border- Diebold E-Voting Machines Rejected-No Charges against Alleged Secret Service Imposter-CAFTA's Deciding Votes Were Coerced-Roberts Had Larger 2000 Recount Role-Bush Will Defy Congress on Bolton -------------- t r u t h o u t Town Meeting t r u t h o u t Home (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Tim's saying "No" was quite possibly not a joke. You may not be aware of this overseas, but the right-wing in this country (often called red-staters) has made it clear that they do not want the U.S. to be a Democracy (where one man=one vote) and take great pride that this country is in fact a Republic (where small states have greater power per person due to the electoral college). Thus, they are proud to be Republicans and not Democrats. When W supposedly won in 2000, due to the electoral college, there was quite a lot of publicity given to the fact that THANK GOD we're not a democracy--otherwise we'd have Al Gore as president and the red staters and small towns would be held hostage to "Jew York" and "La la land." This country, united we stand blah blah blah, is in fact quite divided. The south is getting their revenge for the civil war, and for civil rights, and for women's rights, and for abortion rights, and for gay rights, and for the teaching of evolution ("my granddad weren't no monkey") and it hurts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "You may not be aware of this overseas, but the right-wing in this country (often called red-staters) has made it clear that they do not want the U.S. to be a Democracy (where one man=one vote) and take great pride that this country is in fact a Republic (where small states have greater power per person due to the electoral college). Thus, they are proud to be Republicans and not Democrats. When W supposedly won in 2000, due to the electoral college, there was quite a lot of publicity given to the fact that THANK GOD we're not a democracy--otherwise we'd have Al Gore as president and the red staters and small towns would be held hostage to "Jew York" and "La la land." This country, united we stand blah blah blah, is in fact quite divided. The south is getting their revenge for the civil war, and for civil rights, and for women's rights, and for abortion rights, and for gay rights, and for the teaching of evolution ("my granddad weren't no monkey") and it hurts." And, all the more reason to abolish it, see below. FindLaw | Legal Professionals | Students | Business | Public | News E-mail@Justice.com | MY FindLaw Legal News | Entertainment | Sports | Newsletters | Supreme Court Find A Lawyer | Law Jobs | CLE Lawyer Search StateALAKAZARCACOCTDEDCFLGAHIIDILINIAKSKYLAMEMDMAMIMNMSMOMTNENVNHNJNMNYNCNDOHOKO RPARISCSDTNTXUTVTVAWAWVWIWYASGUMPPRVI Select a Practice AreaAdministrative LawAdmiralty & Maritime LawAdoptionAgriculture LawAlternative Dispute ResolutionAntitrust & Trade RegulationAviationBanking & Finance LawBankruptcy LawBusiness & Commercial LawBusiness OrganizationsChild SupportCivil RightsCommunications & Media LawConstitutional LawConstruction LawConsumer ProtectionContractsCriminal LawCriminal Law -- FederalCustody & VisitationDebtor/CreditorDiscriminationDivorceDUI/DWIEducation LawElder LawElection Campaign & Political LawEminent DomainEmployment Law -- EmployeeEmployment Law -- EmployerEnergy LawEntertainment, Sports & Leisure LawEnvironmental LawEstate PlanningEthics & Professional ResponsibilityFamily LawFranchisingGaming LawGovernment Agencies & ProgramsGovernment ContractsHealth & Health Care LawImmigration & Naturalization LawInsurance LawIntellectual Property LawInternational LawInternet -- CyberspaceLabor LawLand Use & ZoningLandlord/TenantLegal MalpracticeLemon LawLitigation & AppealsMedical Malpractice LawMilitary LawMotor Vehicle Accidents -- PlaintiffNative Peoples LawNatural Resources LawNursing HomePatentsPersonal Injury -- DefensePersonal Injury -- PlaintiffProbate & Estate AdministrationProducts Liability LawProfessional Malpractice LawReal Estate LawScience & Technology LawSecurities LawSexual HarassmentSocial Security -- DisabilityState, Local & Municipal LawTaxation LawToxic TortsTrademarksTraffic ViolationsTransportation LawTrustsWillsWorkers' Compensation Law Writ: Commentary Search Writ Front Page Forums Enron Tribunals Terrorism 2004 Elections 2000 Elections Archives Columnists Guest Columnists Law Students Book Reviews Message Boards Legal News US Law Supreme Court Politics Civil Rights Crime Tort Business Labor Tech & IP Environment Investigations International Entertainment Sports News Wires Legal Documents FindLaw Features Supreme Court Center Recent Case Law Cases & Codes FindLaw Library Legal Dictionary MY FindLaw Print This | Email This ---- HISTORY, SLAVERY, SEXISM, THE SOUTH, AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Part One Of A Three-part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College By AKHIL REED AMAR AND VIKRAM DAVID AMAR ---- Friday, Nov. 30, 2001 This is Part One of a three-part series by the authors on the electoral college, the parts of which will appear on this site every other Friday. - Ed. On the first anniversary of the very odd election of 2000, it's hard to look back without fixating on Florida and the courts. But these absorbing soap operas should not obscure the other historical headline: the national popular vote loser nonetheless won the electoral college vote. Is this a flaw in our Constitution? Should we scrap the electoral college in favor of direct popular vote? Practically speaking, can we do so? Our analysis proceeds in three parts. Today, we will critique standard historical accounts of, and justifications for, the electoral college. In our next column, we will consider prominent modern arguments on behalf of the current system. In our final column, we shall show how Americans could adopt popular election without amending the Constitution. Let's begin by considering why the Philadelphia Framers invented an intricate electoral college contraption in the first place, and why, after its gears jammed in the Adams-Jefferson-Burr election of 1800-01, the Twelfth Amendment repaired the thing rather than junking it. Why didn't early Americans simply opt for direct national election of the President? The typical answers taught in grade-school civics miss much of the real story, both by misreading the evidence from Philadelphia and ignoring the significance of later events, especially the Twelfth Amendment. The Electoral College Does Not Really Help Small States - Nor Was It Designed To It's often said that the Founders chose the electoral college over direct election in order to balance the interests of big (high population) and small (low population) states. The key Philadelphia concession to small states was the Framers' back-up selection system: if no candidate emerged with a first-round electoral-vote majority, then the House of Representatives would choose among the top five finalists, with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. According to the standard story, although big states would predictably dominate the first round, small states could expect to loom large in the final selection. But as James Madison insisted, the deepest political divisions in early America were not between big and small states as such; rather, the real fissures separated north from south, and east from west. Moreover, once the modern system of national presidential parties and winner-take-all state contests emerged-a system already visible, though not yet entrenched, at the time of the Twelfth Amendment-the big states obviously had the advantage. With two national presidential parties, one candidate almost always had an electoral majority in the first round, rendering the Framers' pro-small-state back-up system irrelevant. (Three or four strong candidates, in contrast, might have split the vote so that no one garnered a majority.) And winner-take-all rules - under which a candidate who won a state got all of its electoral votes, not a number proportional to the extent of his win - compounded the advantage of big states. Indeed, before the Civil War Amendments (which changed the electoral college yet again), only one of the sixteen presidents hailed from a small state-Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. And of the twenty-six men to hold the office since the Civil War, only Bill Clinton of Arkansas claimed residence in a small state. In sum, if the Framers' true goal was to give small states a leg up, they did a rather bad job of it. (We shall suggest below, however, that their chief goal was something rather different.) How the Founders' Concern About Voter Information Was Rendered Obsolete Another Founding-era argument for the electoral college stemmed from the following objection to direct election: ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose intelligently among leading presidential candidates. But, that no longer applies today, what with the internet and other high-speed information systems accessible and in place. [my emphasis. TM] This objection is sometimes described today as reflecting a general Founding distrust of democracy. But that is not quite right; after all, the Framers required that the House be directly elected every two year, sharply breaking with the indirect election of Congressmen under the Articles of Confederation. Many leading Federalists also supported direct election of governors. The key objection at Philadelphia was thus not to democracy per se, but to democracy based on inadequate voter information. The Founders believed that although voters in a given state would know enough to choose between leading state candidates for House races and for the governorship, these voters would likely lack information about which out-of-state figure would be best for the presidency. This objection rang true in the 1780s,when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms that explained to voters who stood for what. The 1800-01 Election and the Twelfth Amendment's Transformation of the Electoral College Although the Philadelphia Framers did not anticipate the rise of national presidential parties, the Twelfth Amendment (proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later) was framed with such parties in mind in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties--Federalists led by John Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson--took shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, but only after an extended crisis triggered by several glitches in the Framers' electoral machinery. In particular, Republican electors had no formal way to designate that they wanted Jefferson for President and Aaron Burr for Vice President rather than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to exploit the resulting confusion. Enter the Twelfth Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The Amendment transformed the Framers' framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the Twelfth Amendment's electoral college system, not the Philadelphia Framers', that remains in place today. Yet the Amendment typically goes unmentioned in standard civics accounts of the Constitution. The election of 1800-01 also helped allay another early anxiety about a popularly elected President. At the Founding, some saw a populist Presidency as uniquely dangerous-inviting demagoguery and possibly dictatorship with one man claiming to embody the Voice of the American People. The dictator/demagogue concern was greater for a president than a governor, given the president's broader electoral mandate and status as continental commander-in-chief. But beginning with Jefferson's election, Americans began to embrace a system in which presidential aspirants ran national campaigns, sought direct voter approval, and claimed popular mandates upon election. The Key Role of Slavery in the History of the Electoral College The biggest flaw in standard civics accounts of the electoral college is that they never mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery. At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the President. But in a key speech on July 19, the savvy Virginian James Madison suggested that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes." In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the electoral college-a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech-instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall electoral college. Virginia emerged as the big winner-the California of the Founding era-with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson's free state of Pennsylvania had ten percent more free persons than Virginia, but got twenty percent fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes. If the system's pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the Presidency. Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves. The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, when the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the electoral college system rather than tossing it, the system's pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that "The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election." But Thatcher's complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election. How the Electoral College Hurt Women's Suffrage, As Well The Founding fathers' electoral college also didn't do much for the Founding mothers. In a system of direct national election, any state that chose to enfranchise its women would have automatically doubled its clout in presidential elections. (New Jersey apparently did allow some women to vote in the Founding era, but later abandoned the practice.) Under the electoral college, however, a state had no special incentive to expand suffrage-each state got a fixed number of electoral votes based on population, regardless of how many or how few citizens were allowed to vote or actually voted. As with slaves, what mattered was simply how many women resided in a state, not how many could vote there. In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Americans must ask themselves whether we want to maintain this peculiar institution in the twenty-first century. After all, most millennial Americans no longer believe in slavery or sexism. We do not believe that voters lack proper information about national candidates. We do not believe that a national figure claiming a national mandate is unacceptably dangerous. What we do believe is that each American is an equal citizen. We celebrate the idea of one person, one vote-an idea undermined by the electoral college. Of course, it remains possible that a system with dirty roots nevertheless makes sense today for rather different reasons than the ones present at the creation. In our next column, we will canvass clever modern arguments for the college. Stay tuned. What Do You Think? Message Boards -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar are brothers who write about law. Akhil graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, clerked for then-judge Stephen Breyer, and teaches at Yale Law School. Vikram graduated from U.C. Berkeley and Yale Law School, clerked for Judge William Norris and Justice Harry Blackmun, and teaches at U.C. Hastings College of Law. Their "brothers in law" column appears regularly in Writ, and they are also occasional contributors to publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Jointly and separately, they have published over one hundred law review articles and five books. Book Reviews Conviction, and In The Shadow Of The Law - by SAM WILLIAMSON Coming Monday: Columnist Julie Hilden On A Controversial Environmental Law Dissent Of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts Columnists Akhil Amar Vikram Amar Bart Aronson Sherry Colb John Dean Michael C. Dorf Joanna Grossman Marci Hamilton Julie Hilden Edward Lazarus Joanne Mariner Anita Ramasastry Anthony Sebok Guest Columnists Writ Forum Message Boards LEGAL NEWS: Top Headlines · Supreme Court · Commentary · Crime · Cyberspace · International US FEDERAL LAW: Constitution · Codes · Supreme Court Opinions · Circuit Opinions US STATE LAW: State Constitutions · State Codes · Case Law RESEARCH: Dictionary · Forms · LawCrawler · Library · Summaries of Law LEGAL SUBJECTS: Constitutional · Intellectual Property · Criminal · Labor · more... GOVERNMENT RESOURCES: US Federal · US State · Directories · more... INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES: Country Guides · Trade · World Constitutions · more... COMMUNITY: Message Boards · Newsletters · Greedy Associates Boards TOOLS: Office · Calendar · Email · West WorkSpace · FirmSites Advertising Info · Add URL · Help · Comments Jobs@FindLaw · Site Map Company | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer Copyright © 1994-2005 FindLaw

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia includes the following on the Monroe Doctrine: “The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed that the Americas should be closed to future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs. It further stated the United States's intention to stay neutral in European wars and in wars between European powers and their colonies but to consider any new colonies or interference with independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the United States. It was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual address to Congress. The Doctrine was conceived by its authors, especially John Quincy Adams, as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt as a license for the U.S. to practice its own form of colonialism (see Roosevelt Corollary).” I assume Tim means the second of these two interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine. I have three questions for Tim and other members of the Forum. The first question concerns the analysis of JFK’s foreign policy. (1) Did he change his foreign policy towards Cuba between 1960 and 1963? Was he attempting to negotiate an end to the Cold War? The second question concerns the morality of foreign policy. (2) Are American presidents morally right in trying to overthrow foreign governments? Was the JFK of 1963 more morally acceptable than the JFK of 1960-2? The third question concerns the consequences of JFK’s change of policy. Was this the reason that JFK was assassinated? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "The second question concerns the morality of foreign policy. (2) Are American presidents morally right in trying to overthrow foreign governments? Was the JFK of 1963 more morally acceptable than the JFK of 1960-62?" American presidents are NOT morally right in trying to overthrow foreign governments. Why? The Geneva Conventions 1949, and in the case of SEA, The Geneva Accords. The JFK of 1963 had become more aware of what had been taking place with respect to the BOP operations, and its subsequent backlash, during his first term, and had decided to take a progressively different approach by opening dialogue with both Cuba and Kruschev. This was quite evident in the speech he made to the graduates of the American University, a few months before he was murdered. Kruschev, apparently found The American University Speech important enough to declare it be made required reading for U.S.S.R. university graduates, as well. Does this make him more morally acceptable than the JFK of 1960-62? To people, such as myself, it served to give us hope for eventual world peace. But, for people such as those I choose to refer to as "fascists", and for those who'd already labelled JFK as immoral, anything JFK tried to do would never be acknowledged as anything more than communist sympathizing, unfortunately.

"I found your statement that you run this forum "to allow members to discuss attempts by governments to mislead their citizens" most curious. Talk about an agenda. Perhaps I was wrong; I thought the purpose of the Forum was to attempt to discover who killed Kennedy." But, I thought that's exactly what "the attempt to discover who killed Kennedy", is all about, Tim. "An attempt by our government to mislead its citizens." I knew that when I was 19 years old. Sorry, but I'm going to miss Shanet around here, big time.

various pages and articles that may be of interest from following a search for "Empire Mutual Life Insurance Company" http://watch.pair.com/database2.html "Richard Shoff - CNP Board of Governors (1982). Former Grand Kilgrapp (state secretary) and funder of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. Financial supporter of High Frontier, a Star Wars group allied with Elizabeth Clare Prophet's Church Universal and Triumphant. Served on board of Jesse Helms' Coalition for Freedom which receives funding from the Pioneer Fund which funds racialist research. Funds and served on board of directors of the Conservative Caucus. [bellant (CC) 38, 54] "Another Conservative Caucus board member and funder is Richard Shoff, a North Carolina businessman whose questionable business practices have brought him the attention of local newspapers, trade associations, and the Better Business Bureau. Shoff has also been involved in a number of lawsuits while running sales operations in Indiana and selling log homes from his company, Lincoln Log Homes, in North Carolina. In the early 1970's, he was the Grand Kilgrapp (state secretary0 of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. Indianapolis police told a reporter that KKK cross burnings were held on Shoff's property during Klan rallies which were hosted by Shoff. According to the head of the Indiana KKK, Shoff was also a generous funder of Klan activities. Shoff claims he has left the Ku Klux Klan in 1973. "Shoff is also on the board of Coalition for Freedom, a Jesse Helms group that receives funding from the Pioneer Fund which funds racialist research. Shoff is one of a number of TCC [The Conservative Caucus] leaders who are also members of the Council for National Policy. Other Conservative Caucus supporters and leaders who are also members or leaders of the Council for National Policy include Amway leader Richard DeVos, Louis Jenkins, and Robert H. Krieble, John D. Beckett, and Joe and Holly Coors." [bellant (CC) 54] " http://dks.thing.net/Book_Report.html "COLORADO - THE COORS LEGACY: Republicans yesterday nominated Pete Coors for the Senate in Colorado. Coors has an illustrious family history of funding far-right-wing organizations, and being connected to racist and anti-gay movements. As documented in his book, "The Coors Connection," author Russ Bellent points out that Pete allowed the Coors Foundation to continue funding the Council for National Policy, a right-wing group whose board member, Richard Shoff, was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana. Bellent also points out the Coors Foundation "gave $2500 in 1981 to the ultra-rightist Patriotic American Youth, Inc., a group which also distributes explicitly racist literature." And Pete Coors's uncle, William Coors, told a group of African-American businessmen in Denver that blacks "lack the intellectual capacity to succeed." Ironically, the Coors campaign has likened Sen. John Kerry (D) to a convicted KKK murderer. Coors has promised that, if elected to the Senate, he would make lowering the drinking age a top priority – a move that would conveniently aid his beer business." http://watch.pair.com/database1.html#helms Jesse Helms - [33º Freemason; (quasi-Masonic, United Nations NGO) Rotary Club] CNP Board of Governors (1982); CNP Membership Directory (1984-84, 1988, 1996, 1998, 1999). With oil billionaires Herbert William and Nelson Bunker Hunt, Helms is a member of the American branch of a racial eugenics group headquartered in Scotland and headed by Robert Gayre, who published the racialist Mankind Quarterly until Roger Pearson took it over in 1978. [bellant ON 46] "For an overview on 'race and intelligence,' Murray and Herrnstein recommend two books by three Pioneer Fund recipients: Audrey Shuey, Frank C. J. McGurk, and R. Travis Osborne. McGurk is the main authority they cite to 'prove' that IQ tests are not racially biased. He was one of the 'scientific' mainstays of the segregationist movement in the southern US. In 1959 McGurk and Shuey became leading members of the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, first publisher of Mankind Quarterly. Other members included Senator Jesse Helms and the oil billionaire Hunt brothers. Arch-racists in the South introduced Shuey's book in court during the 1960s to argue for continuing school segregation and denying the vote to black people. University of Georgia professor Osborne also testified in court against school integration. Osborne was still, in 1992, trying to prove the long-discarded theory that brain size is somehow related to intelligence." [Racism, Intelligence and the Working Class] "Henry Garrett, Chair of Psychology at Columbia University from 1941 to 1955. A Virginia born segregationist, Garrett was a key witness defending segregation in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. During the 1950s and 1960s, Garrett helped to distribute grants for the Pioneer Fund and was one of the founders of the International Association for the Advancement of Eugenics and Ethnology (IAAEE) in 1959. The IAAEE brought together academic defenders of segregation in the USA and apartheid in South Africa. The Pioneer Fund supported the IAAEE and other institutions working to legitimise race-science, including the IAAEE's journal, The Mankind Quarterly." [searchlight July 1998] Senator Helms has been chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Chairman, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, a member of the Council of 56 of the Religious Roundtable, a member of the Executive Committee of America Cause, in 1975, along with Spruille Braden and Dr. Edward Teller - both members of the CFR, a member of the Committee on Conservative Alternatives - discussed earlier, Director of the American Conservative Union in 1978-1979, a member of the Organizing Committee of the Citizen's Legal Defense fund for the FBI Ad Hoc - discussed previously, a Trustee of America's Future - a network of the "Establishment", associated with the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, an "endorser" of the Unification Church spawned Washington Times, and according to high placed sources, a member of the CFR in 1972! 84. [Miller 6] The National Congressional Club is Jesse Helms' PAC based in Raleigh and was directed by Helms' senior advisor, attorney Tom Ellis. Ellis was the second president of the CNP and former director of the Pioneer Fund, a foundation which finances efforts to prove that African-Americans are genetically inferior to whites. The Congressional Club began after the 1972 Senate campaign, when Ellis retained Richard Viguerie to help pay off the Helms campaign debt. Ellis and Viguerie built the Congressional Club mailing list to more than 300,000 regular contributors -- a constituency for Helms and a major financial resource within the conservative movement...Helms has used his political organization to build connections with New Right and conservative political activists. Besides Viguerie, Phillips, and Dolan connections, Helms is actively represented in Paul Weyrich's coordinating groups. [saloma 90-92] In May of 1998, HR 2431 was passed in the House of Representatives and introduced to the Senate as S772 by Senator Arlen Specter (a Mason). There it was stalled in committee until the Republican leadership led by (Mason) Trent Lott maneuvered a compromise version of the bill through (33º Mason) Jesse Helms' Foreign Services Committee. On October 9, the U.S. Senate passed the International Religious Freedom Act (S-1868) sponsored by Senators Don Nickles, Joseph Lieberman and others by a vote of 98-0. S-1868 was referred immediately back to the House of Representatives where it was passed into law the next day. http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html "In 1932, Chevron struck oil in Bahrain and was soon operating in Saudi Arabia. In 1933, when Hitler seized power, Standard Oil New Jersey supplied Germany with the patents it required for tetraethyl lead aviation fuel. In 1936, the company Schroder, Rockefeller Investment Bankers, included board directors linked to the Gestapo and several European, Nazi-linked banks. It’s lawyers were John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles, leading Wall Street fascists who drummed up American investments in Germany and elsewhere. The Dulles law firm represented I.G. Farben and Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was Hitler’s biggest German financier. The Dulles brothers later became Secretary of State and CIA Director, respectively. In 1937, John D. Rockefeller died, but his legacy of using oil money to grease the wheels of fascism continued. That year, as the Spanish Civil War raged, Texas Co. (later called Texaco) fueled Franco’s fascists. (In 1936, Texas Co. and Standard Oil California formed California Texas Oil (later Caltex) to combine Texas Co’s marketing network in the Middle East with Standard’s operations there.) Texas Co. also continued shipping oil to Germany during WWII. In 1938, Brown Brothers, Harriman, the Wall Street investment firm (with senior partners Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker) was involved in funding the supply of leaded gas for the Nazi Luftwaffe. Chevron and Texas Co. created Aramco in 1939, to pump Saudi oil for the Nazi war machine. In 1940, Texaco provided an office, in their Chrysler Building, for a Nazi intelligence officer, Dr. Gerhardt Westrick. Executives of Standard Oil’s German subsidiary were “Prominent figures of Himmler’s Circle of Friends of the Gestapo – its chief financiers – and close friends and colleagues of the Baron von Schroder” a leading Gesatpo officer and financier (Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy). Just before WWII, the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank collaborated with the Nazi’s Schroder Bank to raise $25 million for Germany’s war economy. They also supplied the German government with names and background information on 10,000 fascist sympathizers in America. Throughout WWII, Rockefeller’s Chase Bank stayed open in Nazi-occupied Paris, providing services for Germany’s embassy and its businesses. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "In 1932, Chevron struck oil in Bahrain and was soon operating in Saudi Arabia. In 1933, when Hitler seized power, Standard Oil New Jersey supplied Germany with the patents it required for tetraethyl lead aviation fuel. In 1936, the company Schroder, Rockefeller Investment Bankers, included board directors linked to the Gestapo and several European, Nazi-linked banks. It’s lawyers were John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles, leading Wall Street fascists who drummed up American investments in Germany and elsewhere. The Dulles law firm represented I.G. Farben and Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was Hitler’s biggest German financier. The Dulles brothers later became Secretary of State and CIA Director, respectively. In 1937, John D. Rockefeller died, but his legacy of using oil money to grease the wheels of fascism continued. That year, as the Spanish Civil War raged, Texas Co. (later called Texaco) fueled Franco’s fascists. (In 1936, Texas Co. and Standard Oil California formed California Texas Oil (later Caltex) to combine Texas Co’s marketing network in the Middle East with Standard’s operations there.) Texas Co. also continued shipping oil to Germany during WWII. In 1938, Brown Brothers, Harriman, the Wall Street investment firm (with senior partners Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker) was involved in funding the supply of leaded gas for the Nazi Luftwaffe. Chevron and Texas Co. created Aramco in 1939, to pump Saudi oil for the Nazi war machine. In 1940, Texaco provided an office, in their Chrysler Building, for a Nazi intelligence officer, Dr. Gerhardt Westrick. Executives of Standard Oil’s German subsidiary were “Prominent figures of Himmler’s Circle of Friends of the Gestapo – its chief financiers – and close friends and colleagues of the Baron von Schroder” a leading Gesatpo officer and financier (Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy). Just before WWII, the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank collaborated with the Nazi’s Schroder Bank to raise $25 million for Germany’s war economy. They also supplied the German government with names and background information on 10,000 fascist sympathizers in America. Throughout WWII, Rockefeller’s Chase Bank stayed open in Nazi-occupied Paris, providing services for Germany’s embassy and its businesses." THANK YOU! For bringing this to our attention again. Believe me, I don't think this point can be driven home often enough. I'd just like to know how these right-wing fascists' mentality justifies what appears to me to be out and out theft, corruption, collusion, and conflict of interest. How dumb and stupid of American citizens to have been coerced into believing otherwise, and to have allowed, and CONTINUE to allow, this kind of grand larceny to go on, as if condoning it. Keep educating and hopefully one day the truth may osmose itself across the collective blood-brain barrier, to finally be comprehended for what this heinous and egregious group of bastards, these so-called industrial barons, really did to the United States as well as to John F. Kennedy.

Hi Mark, Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking reply, of which I'm most appreciative. As you stated: "America's response to political situations has always been shaped by the media of the day. The Spanish-American war was, most likely, precipitated by the Hearst newspapers' coverage of the sinking of the Maine and the public outrage the coverage generated...and it's long been suspected that this was a Northwoods-style operation. So the tactics aren't new." It's quite well-known that the "slogan", REMEMBER THE MAINE, was an exercise in advertisement to sell Hearst's newpapers, with attention grabbing "banner" headlines, in an effort to stoke the popular opinion of the necessity of going to war. Similar to the WTC debacle, maybe? MHO. "I have a sister-in-law who is an elected county government official, as well as being an educator. She and her husband no longer watch news on NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN, and they "protest" the alleged liberal slant in the local news by cancelling their subscription to the daily newspaper. If it isn't heard on Hannity & Colmes, Rush Limbaugh, or FOXNews, they are unaware of what's occurring in the nation and the world around them. And I know a number of folks whose news habits are similar, so they are definitely NOT the eccentrics one might think. On the other hand, I try to access as many news sources as possible; I think that, in the marketplace of ideas, one must first be exposed to ideas before one accepts or dismisses them." I couldn't agree with you more. And, it is for this reason that I choose to view my sources from a foreign news perspective, rather than the via the supposedly, and IMHO, and incorrectly identified by some as "liberal", stance of the American news services. The Fourth Estate, has been co-opted, as well as, corrupted by the "right" from what I've observed, of either of the Times' syndicates out of NYC, or LA. And, as far as American news broadcasting, all of them seem to pale in comparison to those of European offices. Unfortunately, your sister-in-law is representative of just how far to the extreme right the majority of voters seem to have bought into, what I consider to be "backward intolerance", an attitude I consider reminiscent of the old "Dixiecrats" of the pre-civil rights era. Perhaps that's what was really meant by their metaphoric use of the term of the early 1990's, "conservative revolution"?

Gary, This is impressive. Excellent lay-out, as well.

******************************************************************* Who the hell are YOU to regurgitate YOUR feelings about what Judyth should or should not do? YOU HAPPEN TO BE THE GREATEST EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE CONTINUALLY INSERTING THEMSELVES INTO SITUATIONS THAT ARE BIZARRE AS WELL AS IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE SUCH AS YOURSELF TO HAVE TAKEN PART IN! Mind you own goddamned business and quit passing judgement on someone else before you've cleaned up your own house. Remember, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And remember this, every time you open your mouth about Judyth, I'm going to rip your lies to shreds. You know nothing about the situation! All you've ever done is muddy the waters even further. Claiming to be her friend. What a joke!

Over the last few months there have been several quotations like those above from Erik and Ron. As an outsider I have long seen America as a flawed democracy. However, our media, portrays America very differently. The impression is given that the American people are not aware of what is happening to their country. This has been reinforced by the re-election of George Bush. Since starting the JFK Assassination of Forum I have been given new insights into American politics. I know you are not typical but your understanding of the American political process has amazed me. However, your postings have also disturbed me. In the UK we have similar problems with our flawed democratic system as you do. Yet, most of us still feel we can do something about it. Whereas American posters seem resigned to their fate. I would therefore like to ask two questions: Is America a democracy? If not, can it become a democracy? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For a time this was a republic, but our political system has degenerated into an absolute oligarchy. The assassination is just a good example of this state. How could we lose what we never had? The only difference between the old Soviet Union and the United States was that they were honest. "Life stinks and it'll probably stink tomorrow. Welcome to the Worker's Paradise." While our expertise lay in marketing ad advertising. "Yes, things are not quite right presently, but you get a vote and in four years things will change because of it!".... I agree, you do get to vote, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything will change. We still have a fascist regime in both houses. Our system of checks and balances have been compromised. And, how about the issue of electronic ballots and the open field it leaves for further corruption of our voting system? As an outsider I have long seen America as a flawed democracy. However, our media, portrays America very differently. The impression is given that the American people are not aware of what is happening to their country. This has been reinforced by the re-election of George Bush. The only eras in which America has been able to pass for anything remotely resembling a true "democracy" was during Lincoln's term, FDR's, and JFK's, that I am aware of. All other terms have been a paradox, due to the intentional extermination of the Native Americans, the slavery issue, and the equal rights issue, which have yet to be adequately addressed, and have always been swept under the rug in the hopes that it will either go away, or die away. Your media and the European media portray America correctly, but the majority of Americans are unaware of Operation Mockingbird, and have been coerced pschologically into believing whatever is fed to them via NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Therefore, the impression that "the American people are not aware of what is happening..." is very much on the mark, but you can add to that, "nor do the majority want to know, but prefer to remain in the dark, as long as they're assured their most basic needs are going to be met." Case in point, I can only discuss what we're addressing here with a few people at my job. Three to be exact, out of fifteen, because the other ten are afraid to make what they believe to be waves in their lives, are fearful of what kind of a can of worms they may open up and find, and consider themselves totally helpless to change the pattern they feel has been allowed to evolve, because they view their vote as an exercise in futility. The two others are not citizens. I have heard only one of my colleagues mention remorse in casting her vote for Bush. And, that's probably because she never really listened to what my two like-minded co-workers and I were discussing until recently, and began observing inconsistencies in the Bush administration that ran counter to what she had been anticipating. The majority of the American people are more impressed by "showmanship" and the latest fashion, moreso than by content and quality. It's been successfully ingrained into their psyches by the media. Nor will they listen to something not presented as a sound byte, or a catchy slogan. They prefer everything pre-packaged, par-boiled, and easily consumable, with the minimum of effort required to read the fine print, or warnings on the labels. This is what I refer to as the dumbing-down of American, or of western intellect. And, they've bought it, wholeheartedly and accepted it, regardless of the consequences, or recognizing any responsibility their actions [in-actions] may have contributed to what they now find to be so inadequate. They've allowed themselves to be led down a primrose path, and could care less about government policy, just as long as they're able to afford to send their kids to private schools, in order to avoid the stark and gutted realities of our inner cities' public school system. Those in California, who've voted for Scwartzenegger [sp.?] are finally coming to terms with his worthless promises. There aren't enough textbooks to go around, and the ones that exist must be shared between students. People in California vote to keep their property taxes down, but as a result, shoot themselves in the foot, because their school system ends up taking it in the teeth. What about all those promises of Lotto money and the shot in the arm it would provide for the schools? Probably pocketed by the owners of the Lotto franchises. Let's face it, there's no pie in the sky scheme that's going to somehow miraculously come down and "amnesty" us out of this debacle. If people come to California, hoping to raise a family, they'd be better off looking to Oregon or Seattle to meet the educational needs of their children. Because, unless you're able to afford private schools, you'll be doing your children a grave disservice. So, if we sound cynical, maybe we should heed the words of either George Bernard Shaw, or was it Noel Coward, or Oscar Wilde [pardon my lapse of memory here] who stated in so many words, "A cynic is not one to be thought of as a negative person, but one who is simply aware of his surroundings." Or, something to that effect. The majority of Americans are totally unaware because they choose to be ostriches and hide there heads in the sand. A total embarressment before the rest of the world.

Tim says he reported Sengretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks. How much is he getting for his disinformation efforts here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Tim says he reported Sengretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks." Tim! How could you cheapen yourself by accepting a rate lower than a two-bit hooker's? I'm appalled! Hell, if you were going to work for the bastards, you should have at least charged them through the nose, like minimum fifty grand. But seriously now, when you go to photograph Boca Chica, try and approach it from Stock Island, preferably from the inside of the trailer park [if it's still there, which I doubt] that was on the east side of the highway that led into Key West. It was called the Stock Island Trailer or Mobile Home Park, and if you walked due east you'd come to the little inlet on the reef where you could wade out into the shallows and see directly across to the floating ammo dump. It was shaped like an upside down cake baking pan, kind of like those Pyrex or Corning shapes, it was sand colored with what looked to be pebbled ground-cover types of rocks, and had 4 to 6 tall light poles with red flashing lights that were always on. I'd like to know what they've put up in its place, because it's probably changed a whole helluvalot since 1963. Like I said, Key West 1963 = Battleship Gray. Thanks again, Ter

Jeez Louise, Tim. You sure got around alot back then, didn't ya? Aren't you ever going to take a picture of Boca Chica Naval Air Station for me? I only want it for nostalgic reasons, really. Just to compare it with my memories of how I remembered it when I lived on Stock Island in 1963-64. I lived just a little ways down the road from Turner Electric, Bob Turner's place. Just wondering if it was still there, as well. Those Conchs make great Key Lime Pie down there, don't they? Take care. Ter

Deleted by Terry Mauro It has been brought to my attention by fellow collaborator, Steve Gaal, that The Crowley List has already been refuted by Daniel Brandt's Namebase, and that in the interest of keeping any information I may post, above reproach, I should cease and desist in exposing myself to a case of "hoof 'n' mouth" disease, by deleting the list. As one who has never been a proponent of the indiscriminate dissemination of misinformation or disinformation, I hereby apologize to John, Andy, and my fellow forum members for my irresponsible gaff. Thank you, Steve. TM

"The fascists have won." "The blue and grey they stomped it They kicked it just like a dog And when the war over They stuffed it just like a hog" "And though the past has its share of injustice Kind was the spirit in many a way But its protectors and friends have been sleeping Now it's a monster and will not obey" That's exactly what I meant, Mark.

I recall being taught the principle of "Manifest Destiny" in US History classes. Simply said, it was a policy of unfettered expansion of the American frontier based upon the premise that American domination of the continent was preordained, that it was America's destiny, that this land was meant to be ours for the taking. I remember reading about it that way, too. I always wondered who told them it was O.K. to take something that didn't belong to them. The whole system reminded me of a bunch of penal colony squatters. I know there were renegade Native Americans who allowed themselves to become coerced by the Dutch, Spanish, and the British, but for the most part the majority of them suffered subjugation, and brutal treatment, especially under Father Junipera Serra who beat them and drove them like a herd of beasts of burden. And, there was the formidable Trail of Tears that managed to catch part of my mother's people up into it, all the way to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where she and my Grandfather would end up going to visit, after taking their cotton and crops to market down in New Orleans via the TVA, and on their way back, swinging off to the Arkansas River and on to Oklahoma. Alot of the Cherokees ended up literally heading for the hills of the Carolinas in an effort to hide out from Andrew Jackson's forced march to the "Indian Territories", as the state of Oklahoma was originally founded for. And, although they say, "one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch", I have a hard time believing that. I would think that it was more a matter of greed, hautiness, and arrogance fueled of ignorance. Because, when you actually think about who ended up populating the continent, it seemed more like the dregs of Europe, rather than the established nobility, or upper classes. Hey, maybe that's the reason why we score such a low average of the mean in intellect in the U.S. today compared to even South America. Of course, that's pure speculation on my part, though. But, somewhere along the line I've become out-numbered here, so I'll just add that knowing all of this doesn't make me feel any better, but I'll deal with it. So thanks again, guys. It's been great trading ideas with you, and I'm always ready to find new ways of viewing our accomplishments, as well as our foibles. I promise to keep an open mind as much as I can regarding my ancestors. 1/4 Cherokee and 1/4 Creek - Maternal side. Time for me to wrap it up for the night. Back again tomorrow. Ter

Hi Terry, Very interesting, Thanks In 1854 Ohio country, Mrs. Walker, the wife of a preacher upon the forced movement of Indians from that area wrote; "Go, fated Indian, to the farthest verge Of earth's remotest shore; There let the night-bird sing thy dirge, When thy weary wandering's o'er. Go sit upon the ocean's brink, And in its solemn moan, Fit music for thy broken heart, Forget thy distant home. But the white man's foot is on thy track, As the blood hound seeks the hare; Then arise,and scale some barren rock, For the white man will not spare. Go dwell upon some craggy peak, Where the eagle makes her nest, And eternal snows are drifting down- There thy weary foot may rest. Away from where your kindred sleep, Beneath a fridged sky; Where the wintery blast will freeze thy tears There lay thee down and die. Cast not a look to thy native land, But to that blissful shore, Where oppression's sigh is never heared, And thou shall weep no more." Thought you would like it. Harry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************************************** Thank you, Harry, I do. I find this part to be particularly poignant. Go sit upon the ocean's brink, And in its solemn moan, Fit music for thy broken heart, Forget thy distant home. But the white man's foot is on thy track, As the blood hound seeks the hare; Then arise,and scale some barren rock, For the white man will not spare. I only wish I could find it in my heart to understand why the white man had to have the attitude that this land belonged to him regardless of how many centuries the Native Americans had been cultivating, gathering, hunting, and all without the waste of one piece of bone or skin. They utilized everything they found, and took only what they needed, and when they needed it. The settlers came across the plains like a plague of locusts, and being "civilized", lacked the sense to read the signs along the way. The subtle hints of what should have been recognized as occupied territory. But they were ill-equipped as trackers, hunters, or skilled in the nuances required as communicators with the people whose land they were literally taking over. The only white men who were fairly adept at the Native American languages were the trappers who traded with them. The Five Civilized Tribes and the Iroquois Nation weren't savages. They had productive communities. I find it increasingly sad the older I get, because it becomes more apparent to me with each national holiday that passes, just how unevolved we are as humans. And, I don't mean intellectually, either. There are many folks out there with high I.Q.'s and MBA's and Doctorates, that's book learning. What I'm talking about is what's in our hearts and minds. How we raise our children. What kind of ethics we teach them. What kind of social skills we pass down to them, by way of example. The kind of respect and tolerance we teach them to have for the variety of colors, cultures, races of mankind, who are all from the same race known as the Human Beings. Therefore, when a holiday such as this past one, is made out to be something so marvelous, and miraculous, and touted to be the epitome of honor, greatness, bravery, generosity, and brotherhood, I just feel I need to remember, and possibly remind those who are so caught up in America's "greatness", of what actually transpired. How all the fine intentions set down in The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution, almost left our sisters and brothers, who may have been a shade or two darker than those of the paler Europeans hitting the shores of the Eastern Woodlands, those taking it upon themselves to create their Manifest Destiny, how it almost left those who were already here for centuries, out of the loop, almost to the point of extinction, through extermination and assimilation. So, for those of you who would say, "But the Native Americans at their peak only totalled 8 million, equivalent to the population of New York City, today." I ask you, "Humans were designed to be stacked upon one another in cubicles like hamsters in cages?" And, for those of you who would counter, "But look at how far we've come, look at what we've made, look at what we've got. Would you rather go back to living with outhouses, or no running water?" I can only respond that I feel I've been fortunate enough, in my life, to have been there and done that, and if need be, would not have a problem re-adjusting. But right now, with the world locked into this phase of greed-at-all-cost, oil-at-all-cost, and the mindset it encourages, well it feels as if we're choking the daylights out of each other with our narrow scope of vision. An unnatural vision, born out of materialistic, non-biodegradable substitutes for all that we should have been learning to do and create with our hands, mind, and heart. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who do, there are. There just aren't enough of them left out there with a desire to learn, or to pass it down anymore, that's all. I think we've hit critical mass, as a "civilized" society, anyway. So, for those of you who might have flown across this continent, and marveled at the expanse of land below you, remember, it already belongs to a developer who's subdivided it, planning on paving it, filling it with tract houses, high-density apartment buildings, and malls. But, that's just my humble observance. Thank you, John for your kind words.

Thank you, Adam, for having the sensitivity to explain yourself to us. You have no idea how much respect I now have for you since displaying this humble side of your personality. It speaks volumes for your good character, and upbringing. Harry has been extremely generous in coming forth with many aspects of his life, of which he's obviously had to come to terms with over the years. He didn't have to volunteer his help, and could have just as easily kept everything to himself. I consider people such as Harry to be truly genuine, which is rare among those of his profession who've chosen to contribute, their time and knowledge of the events that happened, to this on-going investigation. He's never sent us on a wild goose chase nor been a distributor of misinfo/disinfo. I only have the utmost respect for our friend and teacher, here. So, again let me extend my hand in friendship, and thanks for your response. "I have tried putting a pic of myself, but it obviously didn't work, so I will try that again. It is a good poem though. " When I had trouble putting up my bio, and had absolutely no idea of how to scan my picture into an icon, I sent it to John in an e-mail and he was able to set it up for me. All you have to do is ask, him.

"He looks like a young William Seymour to me.." I was about to say the same thing when I looked at it last night, but you guys have beaten me to the punch. Good shot.

Yes, Harry. This once was so very true. But, as I ponder the documentary I saw last night on KLCS, our public education channel, here in L.A., I can't help but notice how far we have fallen from grace, as a race of supposedly civilized people. You see, Harry there are Native Americans residing in the remote areas of the Alaskan wilderness who've survived alongside the herds of caribou that once thrived in the area. That is, until the Chevron Oil Company was given access to Prudhome [sic.?] Bay for drilling and excavation. With each encroachment into the hinterlands, the caribou are being forced to graze higher into the timberline of the Alaskan Tundra. Biologists, as well as the native populations, have been noting a marked decrease in newly born calves, and those that survive have serious health problems, resulting in shorter life spans. By being forced to higher elevations in search of grazing areas, they've encountered permafrost covering their food sources that remain frozen for longer periods of time than at the normally lower elevations, from which they've thrived for centuries. The instinct to survive has driven them to become anemic due to their persistence in trying to break through the permafrost, sometimes 2 inches in thickness, resulting in them cutting their hooves and hocks in the effort to break through to their food source, which can be seen to appear to them as lying just below the surface. This was very painful to behold, watching them walk away leaving a trail of blood in the ice and snow, all the while observing how emaciated they've become as their bones can be seen to protrude from beneath their fur. The native inhabitants have stated that the oil companies attempt to compensate them for eminent domain of their ancestral hunting grounds, by providing natural gas hook-ups to their homes, and sewer lines from which to install toilets. The jobs generated are minimal, and will be short-lived once the oil has been fully depleted. Also, these modern conveniences require monthly payments that they've never had to depend upon before, nor maintain, even as much as a few years ago. In other words, they were self-sufficient in their symbiotic, if you will, [for lack of a better word] relationship with the caribou, and fishing lands they've managed to survive and thrive upon, by maintaining their traditional ancestral lifestyle. The Alaskan tundra and hinterlands are the last remaining vestiges of a rapidly declining rain forest system from which part of the earth's fresh water table is replenished. I find it egregious and self-centered that this present regime in D.C. stubbornly persists to exhibit such total disregard for the inhabitants of the planet as to continually ignore the requests of its citizenry to design an automotive engine less dependent upon fossil-fuels and more conducive to the biosphere. We surely must possess the technology required to effect this. My other question is, do we possess the intellect, or has that been compromised along with the dumbing-down of our educational system, as well? Unless the United States can break its dependency upon fossil fuels and foreign oil sources, we shall remain a debtor nation, preferring to wage unnecessary wars on foreign soil for the sole intention of annexing that country's natural resources, thus perpetuating the image of the blood-suckers we've become. How many times must this point be driven home before it's comprehended, and fully understood? And, for those of you who fail to see the connection between what is being reported to you in this documentary from Alaska's native population, and what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963, please feel free to reiterate. "CHIEF SEATTLE'S 1854 ORATION" - ver . 1 AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE'S TREATY ORATION 1854 Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for centuries untold, and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may change. Today is fair. Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never change. Whatever Seattle says, the great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he can upon the return of the sun or the seasons. The white chief says that Big Chief at Washington sends us greetings of friendship and goodwill. This is kind of him for we know he has little need of our friendship in return. His people are many. They are like the grass that covers vast prairies. My people are few. They resemble the scattering trees of a storm-swept plain. The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends us word that he wishes to buy our land but is willing to allow us enough to live comfortably. This indeed appears just, even generous, for the Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect, and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no longer in need of an extensive country. There was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor, but that time long since passed away with the greatness of tribes that are now but a mournful memory. I will not dwell on, nor mourn over, our untimely decay, nor reproach my paleface brothers with hastening it, as we too may have been somewhat to blame. Youth is impulsive. When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, it denotes that their hearts are black, and that they are often cruel and relentless, and our old men and old women are unable to restrain them. Thus it has ever been. Thus it was when the white man began to push our forefathers ever westward. But let us hope that the hostilities between us may never return. We would have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Revenge by young men is considered gain, even at the cost of their own lives, but old men who stay at home in times of war, and mothers who have sons to lose, know better. Our good father in Washington--for I presume he is now our father as well as yours, since King George has moved his boundaries further north--our great and good father, I say, sends us word that if we do as he desires he will protect us. His brave warriors will be to us a bristling wall of strength, and his wonderful ships of war will fill our harbors, so that our ancient enemies far to the northward -- the Haidas and Tsimshians -- will cease to frighten our women, children, and old men. Then in reality he will be our father and we his children. But can that ever be? Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine! He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son. But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His. Our God, the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us. Your God makes your people wax stronger every day. Soon they will fill all the land. Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide that will never return. The white man's God cannot love our people or He would protect them. They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help. How then can we be brothers? How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness? If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to His paleface children. We never saw Him. He gave you laws but had no word for His red children whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill the firmament. No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and separate destinies. There is little in common between us. To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is hallowed ground. You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and seemingly without regret. Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget. The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors -- the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people. Your dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the stars. They are soon forgotten and never return. Our dead never forget this beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its verdant valleys, its murmuring rivers, its magnificent mountains, sequestered vales and verdant lined lakes and bays, and ever yearn in tender fond affection over the lonely hearted living, and often return from the happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console, and comfort them. Day and night cannot dwell together. The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun. However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them. Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness. It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days. They will not be many. The Indian's night promises to be dark. Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter. A few more moons, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours. But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature, and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see. We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know. But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy returning spirits. And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead, did I say? There is no death, only a change of worlds. Other sources of information: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prolo...ef_seattle.html Detailed research calling into question the very existence of the speech, based on the Bureau of Indian Affairs records at the National Archives, by Jerry L. Clark. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2344/chiefs3.htm Research by Per-Olof Johansson in Denmark http://www.webcom.com/duane/seattle.html "Chief Seattle's Thoughts" - two versions of the speech, by Duane Bristow

Where's your icon or photograph, Mr. Wilkinson? Or, are you merely just new to the forum? John or Andy, decide which categories certain topics should, or should not be posted under, on their site. Plus, they'll inform you, or move it for you themselves, thank you.

"Wow Terry, that's quite a document , it'll take some time for me to digest that. But thank you, I will and will return to it." Take all the time you need. Let me see what I can dig up about the origins and philosophy of fascism.