I am one of the staunchest Oliver Stone fans ever.

But, in this case, I disagree with him.

For so many reasons.

Just two of which are...nuclear power plants being the most dangerous wide-spread human damage threats under several scenarios.

Natural earth born events like Fukushima. Maintenance and structural breakdowns like Chernoble and Three Mile Island.

And the potential for terrorist attack.

It may seem counter productive to keep using the old hydro-electric steam oil energy systems in this day and age, but putting all our marbles into systems that if damaged could wreak as much harm as dirty bombs is too high a price to risk imo.

And here is another analogy. Has anyone here experienced a break down in our power grid system...even for one day?

Some massive ones like those that took out much of our upper East Coast years ago showed us how frighteningly dependent we were on electrical power.

It was like that scene in the old classic film "The Day The Earth Stood Still." 

I was out and about when our power plant here went down for a little more than a day or two a few years ago.

Electric pump and cash register gas stations/stores had to shut down. As well all our grocery and other stores. Traffic came to A stop when all the traffic lights went down to "everyone stop and then go" blinking on and off mode.

I witnessed dozens of frantic yelling incidents of people stuck in traffic and by people pounding on gas station and large chain  grocery store doors. One mother with kids in her gas needing van went crazy screaming she needed help!

Medical care facilities went dark. Workplaces went dark. Schools too.

Everyone seemed way too unnerved and edgy.

This was just over 1 to 2 days of electrical power loss!

I know a few doctor's offices still keep duplicate paper file records on hand now. Most have gone completely digital. Same with most every part of our society. 

Many individuals buy and store items and equipment as a back-up in case their homes power supplies are down.

That mentality makes good sense. We all know this.

With so much major natural and man-made created disasters we KNOW will continue to befall all of us every year or years we should not let go of our cumbersome but less risky other sources of electric power versus increasing Nuclear power imo.

PG&E wanted to shut down their Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant for years. Gavin Newsome recently had them stop that process for a few more years. There are all kinds of earthquake fault lines up and down the California Coast.

We know major earthquakes are going to happen here.

Sacramento ( Smud ) long ago shut down their plant. I don't know if any Southern California plants have shut dowl. But none have been built there in a long while either.

Wow!  Heady stuff.

Much to read and much to study to ask worthy questions.

Too much for me I'm afraid.

Still, with apologies, I can't help asking just one or two possibly naive ones because I feel the subject matter is so important in my mind.

Are you willing to "unequivocally" state that Robert Caro "did or did not" leave enough criminally corrupt actions on the part of LBJ out of his huge LBJ bio series to a degree that warrants a debate about the integrity of Caro's LBJ work as the best bio "end-all" in giving us the "full truth" about LBJ above all others?

Many here and elsewhere claim Caro purposely avoided going into areas of reported LBJ activities that would open up "any" possibility of foreknowledge and/or involvement on LBJ's part regards the JFKA.

How does Caro cover the Mac Wallace "murder with malice" jury conviction trial and LBJ's getting Wallace off completely free of any time served for that conviction? That LBJ action alone is one of the most corrupt doings by a high level U.S. political figure I have ever read about. 

It's implications are so ominously telling it just adds to the alternate LBJ bio story proposition that LBJ was way more corrupt than Caro states.

Did LBJ ever okay or even order the murders of individuals that were of great threat to him personally and/or politically?

Henry Marshall for one.

With LBJ's greatest debt owing protege Mac Wallace ( already a convicted murderer ) being a seriously considered suspect in that murder.

Some of these most famous all powerful editors like Gottleib sound like old Hollywood movie studio heads who were so powerful they could make or break anyone in their industry beneath them.

Sorry, but I always have a natural aversion to over-idolizing people with that kind of power.

Again, apologies for my naive question distraction post here from the fascinating story of Moses, etc.

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben: Some people were let in the Capitol.

That's probably because there  were traitors among Law Enforcement. As it was well known there were a lot of strong Trump supporters among them. A number of the disgruntled Law Enforcement who want justice and to have Trump prosecuted have said they voted for Trump. Now we're finding out Biden distrusts some of his Secret Service.

True.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I agree there must be oversight. But I don't think members of congress, for example, should be given access to the names of informants, or even to how intelligence was gathered, unless there is a pressing reason for their needing this information.  I think a certain amount of compartmentalization is in order, even in regards the President. I don't know but I would hope the President's daily brief is generalized i.e. "Our sources tell us blah blah blah" as opposed to going into specifics. In the case of Trump, providing him with specifics would have been akin to sending an email to Putin, IMO. 

The balance between having modern day intelligence agencies with massive dark budget monies funding them and keeping them under control as far as constitutional law adhering is probably one of the top three challenges of our federal government and has been since Truman and Ike times.

How this balance is maintained is beyond me. Has this balance been compromised in the most major ways in favor of these agencies versus our democratic 3 branch government power and control?

Obviously yes. Otherwise why have the Church committee? Why have Eisenhower's MIC warning speech? Why have JFK firing the heads of the CIA back in the early 1960's...etc, etc.

It's a very serious problem for us all and the integrity of our constitutional democracy foundation.

JFK never grabbed any woman by the Pu$$y without asking them before hand if it was okay.

Trump is a sexually crude man versus JFK in the female respecting behavior department.

For all the gold-plated veneer material accoutrements Trump has always surrounded himself with, thinking it enhanced his public image, he pathetically never understood that this over-stated garishness actually ( in it's stark contrast incongruity )  enhances the fact of his low life crudeness.

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

And I forgot to mention that, unlike Trump, Al Capone never violated a Presidential oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

And with 1,000 X more damage to our entire society versus anything Capone did.

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is hitting below the belt, Mark.

Comparing Trump to Al Capone is unfair to Al Capone.

It's true that both men cheated on their taxes, but Capone was merely a violence-inciting Chicago racketeer.

In contrast, Trump was a violence-inciting Presidential racketeer.  

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

False equivalence, Mark. 
 

In the area of never being indicted, convicted and jailed for obvious crimes a valid comparison, imo.

The man is a serial offender of mostly financial and tax and business fraud crimes but also a known offender in the area of unwanted or inappropriate to overly aggressive sexual behavior toward women. 

A great personal behavior toward women part of Trump's legacy will always be noticeably defined by such well known public record comments like "I like to grab em by the Pu$$y, and they let you do it..." as well as..."she's not my type" in response to a rape charge, and " I never had sex with those two women or paid them any monies" referring to porn star Stormy Daniels and Stephanie Cliffords ( a proven false statement ) and who in the least was also friends with child sex traffickers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, etc.

All in all...a bad character.

All of America is still exhausted and still trying to get through the PTSD of the greatest society scaring and stressing event in our last 50 years ( Covid ) with it's accompanying massive social and economic upheaval combined with record inflation, nation diving political turmoil, extreme weather patterns...you name it...

And this Neanderthal looking Trump cult warrior woman's main priority message of congressional duty agenda is ..."revenge!" ???

Average Americans need help in so many areas.  Yet, all this Trump henchwoman Capo can talk about is "pay back" toward the Democrats?

By 

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ed-

Going back even further...

Need I mention Smedley Butler? 

You have given us a lot to think about. 

BTW, as powerful as the postwar globalists were, I contend they shrink in comparison to today's globalist domination. 

The old globalists, the Freeport Sulphurs, oil guys, or Dole, were mostly in resource extraction. 

Today we have an Apple, Disney, NBA, NBC-Universal, BlackRock, Tesla, GM, JP Morgan, Citigroup, WalMart et al, all deeply committed to globalism (and working with Beijing's CCP, btw).  Far larger, and for more sophisticated and able to bend media (when they are not media itself) to its will. Some rainbow ads, a little greenwashing....

The 10 most powerful think tanks are all globalist outfits:

1. Brookings Institution
2. The Heritage Foundation
3. Council on Foreign Relations
4. Cato Institute
5. Center for Strategic and International Studies
6. American Enterprise Institute
7. RAND Corporation
8. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
9. Atlantic Council
10. Hoover Institution

Every one of these is "free trade," open borders and globalist. 

But of course, globalism requires a global military and intel ops, and dark ops....

And complete control of US government and media dialogues....

 

 

 

 

Scary stuff.

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Fascinating letters, and also ideas regarding the postwar world. 

On one level, Permindex was conceived in part to help battle authoritarian communism. Founded, in part, by people who battled National Socialists. Hats off. 

But Permindex can also be seen as an organization devoted to the welfare of globalist multi-nationals. 

Shaw and Donovan involved. 

Globalist trade organizations, like global media are, excellent roosts and cover for CIA assets. 

Some people, like Max Holland when writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, think it justified that Shaw lied about his long service on the CIA payroll, during the Garrison trial.  Take that as a cue for what else might be "justifiably" kept from the public. 

Agreed.

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It's worse where I am.

We do need the water, Joe.

Hang in there another day.

If it's like previous years, there won't be any rain for 10 months!

Though I don't think so.

Isn't it interesting , all the birds, the plants , the trees, all the wildlife just love it!

We're the only ones who hate it!

 

 

 

Supposed to have full on sun for the next 6 to 7 days after today's rain.

Yippiee - Ki- Yay! Yippie-Ki-Yay!

The homeless aren't loving it. And people who have huge trees on their properties within striking distance of their homes if they fall.

Alaskans have this no sun, grey, wet and cold mud crud 6 to 7 months a year?

No wonder that state has the highest per capita depression and suicide rates.

In the secret agency world, lying to everyone including the American public, presidents, etc. is often justified by being deemed as "patriotic."

E. Howard Hunt was always referring to himself as extremely patriotic. G. Gordon Liddy, et al.

If I lied under oath ( or did illegal acts ) ...it was for patriotic reasons.  That seemed to be their shared criminal action convictions defense when interviewed by William F. Buckley on his "Firing Line" TV show.

I guess this mind set centers around their indoctrinated belief that they know more what's good for us to know than the vast majority of their fellow Americans?

JFK gave a speech warning about major secrets carried too far and the danger to an open society with the potential for abuse by those who hold and control them, if they are left to regulate themselves alone and outside constitutional democracy checks and balances.

I am sure however, that if I was driven to a secret facility and told the whole truth about even a few of our most major secrets that even I might freak out over some of them myself.

It's a gut wrenching conundrum.   

Our constitutional democracy integrity and authority threatened in the balance.

Rain rain go away! Come again some other day!

Enough already!

One month + of rain here on the Central California coast!

Still raining as I type!

Grey, cold, wet, YUK!

People here are used to "some" California sun, even in the heart of Winter.

Mushrooms are growing in clogged roof gutters and on top of dirty cars here!

53 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUMP!!!

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Seriously, I cannot fathom your way of thinking---IMHO, you raised regard for intel agencies into a type of cult worship, with a blind spot towards the near inevitability of every federal bureaucracy (civilian or military) towards aggrandizement, calculated perfidy and self-preservation. 

 

Agree.

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Hope they hook up.

Actually they do make a strikingly attractive couple.

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

RIGHT ON!

On 1/15/2023 at 8:00 AM, Lance Payette said:

There has to be a real-world balance.

Over the past 125 years, U.S. Presidents have ranged from political hacks to someone with the qualifications of George H. W. Bush.  Compare the qualifications of Bush to those of Warren G. Harding and, more recently, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Barack Obama, The Donald and Joe Biden. I would say that within just that list there are distinct differences in perceived loyalty to the United States, trustworthiness, intellect and mental fitness. Much the same can be said about Presidential appointees within the intelligence agencies, who may be here today and gone tomorrow. Presidents are required to have precisely none of the intense background checks and close oversight required for other individuals to obtain and retain high-level security clearances.

Some intelligence careers and operations span decades. Some operations are so highly compartmentalized that no more than a handful of people ever have the full picture. Is it realistic that some newly elected President, who is often a largely unknown quantity and isn’t going to be around for more than four or eight years, should be able to gain full access to everything that all the departments and agencies comprising the Executive Branch (see https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html) know and are doing? 

Clinton famously charged Webb Hubbell with finding the truth about UFOs and the JFKA for no reason other than personal curiosity. If there were some long-guarded Alien Secret of staggering sensitivity, do you think it should have been cheerfully disclosed to Clinton just because he was President and curious about it? Would some 60-year-old Dark Truth about the JFKA have any particular relevance to the performance of a President today?

Like the most gung-ho CTer, it's difficult for me to see what aspect of the JFKA could possibly require nondisclosure today, yet some materials relating to World War II are still classified. Indeed, some documents relating to troop movements in World War I are still classified in the interests of national security. The CIA declassified the last of its World War I documents in 2011. My guess is that if and when full JFKA disclosure occurs, we will see that the reasoning for nondisclosure strikes us as almost paranoid and has nothing directly to do with the JFKA. As I suggested in another thread, it's inconceivable to me that 60 years of diverse CIA Directors and employees have deemed some Dark Truth about the JFKA as "The Secret That Must Be Protected At All Costs" when so many other dark and embarrassing truths have seen the light of day.

Yes, in law and theory the President has almost unfettered access to anything he wants to see within the Executive Branch. In the real world, this makes no sense and is largely honored in the breach. I have no problem with those who actually do have the requisite security clearances making professional judgments as to what a President actually needs to know to carry out his office and how loyal, trustworthy and sane a particular President is.

People like Alan Dulles and James Angleton were more qualified ( mentally, emotionally, morally, honest integrity, national security protecting and constitutional democracy-common good protecting and respecting ) to know, hold and control our deepest secrets over Ike and JFK?

Eisenhower was going to send troops to area 51 because of his intelligence agencies refusing to inform him of what was really going on there.

Isn't it obvious, that our entire constitutional democracy federal government framework is a sham if the truth is there is another part of our government ( with competing power with massive dark funding and self-determined oversight only for decades) that doesn't have to adhere to it's 3 branch checks and balances?

And include our 4th estate as well.

Such a scenario if unchecked could very well end our Constitutional democracy experiment.

As Dwight Eisenhower warned in his MIC speech upon leaving office, this vast expansion of competing non-constitutional abiding influence and power was a new and serious threat to the American Democratic foundation experience.

I think Eisenhower would feel his warning fears have become worse now than he ever imagined they would since his speech upon leaving office 63 years ago.

Yes, whackos like Trump can't handle our deepest truths. But, most of our congress members are emotionally stable, intelligent and Constitution and common American good respecting enough to handle these secrets, imo anyways.

I believe these new secrets we now possess are of such life changing magnitude ( economic, political,  religious, social, military, reality of existence, etc. )  that the holders of them aren't sure what to do with them at times. Yet, other times they are kept from revealing for corrupt elite favoring reasons as well.

God help us all with finding some type of fair minded, common good balance in this new American government imbalance of secret agency entities competing for power and control with our more open and transparent ones.

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/articles/biden-trump-the-cia-reflections-in-a-dark-mirror-nixon-vs-helms-1971

I examine this conversation, and the situation of a sitting US President asking to see documents and apparently being denied, here. 

 

Just read your essay BC.

Pondering the consideration of a possible ominous reality question that as far back as JFK ( maybe even Eisenhower ) that our intelligence agencies answer to no one, not even presidents?

Who has the ultimate governmental power in our society if that is the case?

Is the idea that we have a constitutional democracy government as we were taught in high school civics class a delusion?

As well as the idea that JFK was the most powerful person in our nation and government when he was killed?

Scary, sad stuff to ponder.

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

He's also nephew to Ferdinand Marcos!

I've been forwarding your Santos pic Kirk.

To huge laughter.

4 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

Before I did two tours at Detroit Homicide, I thought that eyewitnesses were genuinely of value. They often are not and even many cops are not. The key is to keep that separated so they don't crosspollinate their testimony.

Could you watch the interview video I posted and tell me what your thoughts are regarding the claims of the former waitress at Austin Barbeque restaurant in Oak Cliff during her almost 2 years of employment there, right up to Tippit's death?

Her employment there is easily provable.

I am sure you can believe many aspects of her recounting her restaurant being a very popular hangout for Dallas police from the Oak Cliff precinct which Tippit was often stationed at?

She mentioned many officer's names which could easily be verified as stationed in that area as well.

If she made up these following parts of her story you would have to wonder why.

She sure didn't do this for money and/or attention. She did this sharing what...40 years later? And she still didn't want her face or name shown for the interview.

She recalled Oswald coming in (twice) with another person and they spoke in a foreign language?

Ruby came in often enough she knew him by sight. She adds that Ruby tried to get her to work at her club. As a stripper one would imagine.

She seemed strong in her recollection that Ruby knew Tippit and would sit with him at a table.

She clearly knew young waitress Johnny Witherspoon who was having an affair with Tippit.

IMO too many details for someone making this all up or even embellishing and with no typical motivation to do so. ie money, attention, bragging, grudge etc.

If half of her recollections are true we definitely have at least some connection between Ruby and Tippit. In and of itself that is important. The Warren Commission stated there was "no" connection between Ruby and Tippit at all.

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

He's also nephew to Ferdinand Marcos!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

MADE MY DAY!

AND MANY THOUGHT HERSHEY WALKER'S 2 FAKE POLICE BADGES WERE A JOKE!

3 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I think it was CIA Director Robert Helms ?

I don't think it was Richard Helms.

It sounds like John Ehrlichman.

Or maybe H. R. Haldeman?

These two were Nixon's top aides.

I know one was sent by Nixon to see Helms and feel out what might be done to take some heat off the investigation of Nixon over Watergate.

When Haldeman repeated Nixon's "Bay Of Pigs" semi-threat comment to Helms, he ( Helms ) reportedly went ballistic on Haldeman?

No president will ever tell the CIA what to do or not to do.

Nixon got the message. He knew his place in the real world of power in our government, and it wasn't in his office.

Alexander Haig was waiting in the wings through all this.