4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

It is also the case however that sources and information you have presented to bolster your opinion have generally been of poor quality. This would include the Esquire article which is the primary source of a fair bit of your arguments over the past days -  including the alleged “I’m no authority in that area” quote which you have jumped on. Again, this article was denounced by Oliver Stone as “filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.” Fletcher Prouty said that the contents of the article referring to him were “made up.”

Your only sources are Prouty himself and Oliver Stone, yet Stone later repudiated Prouty's claims about Lansdale. Now, let's look at my sources:

One of my key sources is investigative journalist Chip Berlet. One would think that you and Niederhut would listen to Berlet because he is an ultra-liberal whose pro-civil rights and anti-surveillance-state credentials are beyond dispute. Here's what Wikipedia says about Berlet:

          He was a senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks.

          Berlet, a paralegal, was a vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild. He has served on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, and for over 20 years was on the board of the Defending Dissent Foundation. In 1982, he was a Mencken Awards finalist in the best news story category for "War on Drugs: The Strange Story of Lyndon LaRouche," which was published in High Times. He served on the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. . . .

          During the late 1970s, he became the Washington, D.C., bureau chief of High Times magazine, and in 1979, he helped to organize citizens' hearings on FBI surveillance practices. From then until 1982, he worked as a paralegal investigator at the Better Government Association in Chicago, conducting research for an American Civil Liberties Union case, involving police surveillance by the Chicago police (which became known as the "Chicago Red Squad" case).[8] He also worked on cases filed against the FBI or police on behalf of the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago (S.A.C.C.), the National Lawyers Guild, the American Indian Movement, Socialist Workers Party, the Christic Institute, and the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker group).

But, alas, because Berlet has documented what a fraud and flake Prouty was, you're even turning against Berlet, rather than just admit the truth about Prouty.

One of my other sources is the Anti-Defamation League. Did you catch that? Yes, I said the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). So now you're going to dismiss the ADL rather than face the facts about Prouty? The ADL was the group that documented how many times Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio program (10 times in four years). The ADL also noted that Prouty was a "longtime Liberty Lobby associate." The ADL further listed all of the Holocaust deniers, white supremacists, and neo-N-azis who likewise appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show (Willis-Carto-Extremism-in-America.pdf (adl.org).

The fact that Prouty peddled the Iron Mountain Report hoax and even claimed he spoke with a member of the non-existent study group is well documented (LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK). 

Another one of my sources is Prouty himself. In his interviews with Scientology's Freedom Magazine, Prouty declared that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. intelligence were behind the Jonestown massacre (LINK). Prouty peddled the Iron Mountain hoax during one of the appearances on Liberty Lobby's radio show. In his book JFK, Prouty said,

          All leaders of all nations know that, as stated in Report From Iron Mountain, "The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer. It is ironic that this primary function of warfare has been generally recognized by historians only where it has been expressly acknowledged—in the pirate societies of the great conquerors." (LINK)

Prouty's other bogus claims can be found in his writings and interviews, such as his claim that the "Secret Team" may have assassinated Princess Diana, that the F-16 was far inferior to the MiG-25, that Churchill may have had Stalin poisoned, that Lansdale hated JFK and wanted a huge escalation of the Vietnam War, that his trip to the South Pole on 11/22 was sinister and designed to ensure presidential protection was inadequate for the Dallas motorcade, that he had notes that he had taken during his alleged "stand down" phone call from the 112th MI Group, etc., etc., etc.

Here is another scholarly review of Selverstone's The Kennedy Withdrawal. It was published in the New York Journal of Books and was written by Francis Sempa. Sempa is a professor of political science at Wilkes University, a former contributing editor to the journal American Diplomacy, and a widely respected authority on American foreign policy with articles published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Strategic Review, Human Rights Review, and Joint Force Quarterly. Sempa's review is interesting because Sempa is a conservative:

          Ever since the political left in this country turned against the Vietnam War, partisan and scholarly debates have raged about whether President John F. Kennedy, assuming he had not been assassinated and won a second term, would have escalated U.S. military involvement in Vietnam like his successor Lyndon Johnson did. Marc J. Selverstone of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center begins his new book on this subject by calling this debate “The great ‘What If?’”

          Unfortunately, Selverstone’s The Kennedy Withdrawal does not definitively answer that question, but it does give us greater insight into the motives of Kennedy and his advisers in their efforts to “succeed” in Vietnam. And success was defined as preventing South Vietnam and the other Southeast Asian “dominoes” from falling into the hands of the communists.

          Selverstone depicts Kennedy and his national security team as believers in the “domino theory” that was first explicated by President Eisenhower in the 1950s. This theory held that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, other nations in the region would also fall like dominoes—one after the other. And in the “long twilight struggle” (Kennedy’s words) known as the Cold War, the fall of those Asian dominoes would undermine American credibility throughout the world.

          Selverstone challenges what he calls the “Camelot” view of the Kennedy withdrawal—the notion promoted by Kennedy court historians and partisans that Kennedy was determined to withdraw U.S. forces from Vietnam, thus avoiding the quagmire that President Johnson supposedly created in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination. Very little in history or politics, and very little about the machinations of the Kennedys, is that simple. 

          As a Senator from Massachusetts, Kennedy, Selverstone notes, took public positions that “were sharply critical of the Truman administration--for its handling of the Chinese civil war . . . and for its handling of the Korean War.” Senator Kennedy was a foreign policy “hawk” who criticized Eisenhower for not spending enough on conventional defenses and for negligently allowing a “missile gap” to develop in favor of the Soviet Union. Kennedy ran to the “right” of Vice President Richard Nixon on foreign policy issues during the 1960 presidential campaign.

          As President, Kennedy in his inaugural address promised to “bear any burden” and “pay any price” to defend liberty, and he significantly increased the numbers of U.S. military forces in South Vietnam. Kennedy and some of his advisers characterized the defense of South Vietnam as a “vital” or “significant” U.S. interest. Selverstone identifies the considerations that shaped JFK’s approach to Vietnam as “modernization, foreign aid, counterinsurgency, . . . flexible response . . . [and] general concerns about credibility and falling dominoes.”

          Domestic politics was never too far away from Kennedy’s consideration on Vietnam or, for that matter, any other issue. And it was here that Kennedy and his advisers formulated plans for a symbolic withdrawal of 1000 troops for sometime in 1964 or 1965. But Kennedy did not want to be the president who “lost” Vietnam the way Truman “lost” China. Truman suffered politically both for the “loss” of China and the stalemate of the Korean War.

          Selverstone notes that the key national security document on U.S. policy toward Vietnam produced by Kennedy’s task force on Southeast Asia was NSAM 52, which “pledged the administration ‘to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society; and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological and covert character designed to achieve this objective.’” Pursuant to this plan, the Kennedy administration sent U.S. servicemen “streaming into South Vietnam.”

          Selverstone criticizes the Kennedy team for their “reluctance to distinguish between peripheral and vital interests” and for developing a habit of using U.S. military forces to “send signals” of American resolve. Kennedy’s military “advisers,” Selverstone notes, were engaging in combat, regularly accompanying South Vietnamese forces into the field against the Viet Cong.

         Kennedy consistently portrayed his administration’s actions as helping South Vietnam “win its own fight.” Kennedy understood the political danger of over-committing American forces in a country most Americans knew little about. But he also understood the political minefields of the “falling dominoes” and another Korean War-like stalemate. Kennedy was nothing if not politically cautious.

          Selverstone provides plenty of evidence for a token Kennedy withdrawal of forces, but very little evidence—other than self-serving recollections of Kenneth O’Donnell, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and the egregious Robert McNamara--that Kennedy intended to withdraw U.S. military forces from Vietnam. The “Camelot” version of the Kennedy presidency is as fictitious as the English legend.

          The best Selverstone can do is to speculate about JFK’s real intentions in Vietnam. And he suggests that Kennedy and his national security team would probably have acted on the basis of the military situation on the ground as it evolved over the next several years. And it is worth remembering that most of the people advising Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam after Kennedy’s death were Kennedy’s people.

          “Rather than signal an eagerness to wind down the U.S. assistance effort,” Selverstone concludes, “the policy of withdrawal—the Kennedy withdrawal—allowed JFK to preserve the American commitment to Vietnam.” The rest, as they say, is history.

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never denied that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic, Greg. What I've said is that it wasn't overtly anti-Semitic.

And that's an inane and evasive argument, if not a shameful one. Just because Liberty Lobby did not admit they were anti-Semitic does not change the fact that they were obviously, clearly, self-evidently, and undeniably anti-Semitic. 

You could just as absurdly argue that N-azi Germany was not "overtly" engaged in genocide against the Jews. The N-azis denied this at every turn. During the war, the N-azis claimed that accounts of death camps and mass slaughter of Jews were Russian, British, and American propaganda. But who in their right mind would say, "Well, gee, the N-azis weren't 'overtly' genocidal"? 

To this day, there are neo-N-azi and anti-Semitic groups that adamantly deny the Holocaust, and Fletcher Prouty was in bed with two of them for many years.

When Prouty was asked about Willis Carto's denial of the Holocaust, he replied with the disgraceful doge of "I'm no authority in that area." He also blamed high oil prices on the Israelis. 

We both know that everyone in this thread would roundly condemn any WC apologist who gave such a sleazy answer when asked about Holocaust denial, had a book published by the IHR, appeared 10 times in a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio show (the same show that hosted numerous Holocaust deniers, neo-N-azis, and white supremacists), recommended that people read The Spotlight, defended the Scientology cult and its founder and crook Ron Hubbard, peddled the Iron Mountain Report hoax and even claimed he spoke with a member of the non-existent Iron Mountain Special Study Group, speculated that the "Secret Team" may have assassinated Princess Diana, and entertained the nutty theory that Churchill had FDR poisoned, etc., etc.

I am still astounded, just astonished, by the refusal of some here to face facts and deal honestly with the evidence about Prouty. It certainly doesn't help that a moderator is one of them.

I don't think Prouty was just a peddler of bogus claims. I don't think he was merely dishonest and disreputable. I think he actually had some screws loose. 

Just now, Bill Brown said:

Look.  This is real simple.  In addition to trying to change the subject, you said that Whaley did not choose Oswald at the lineup; that he chose Knapp.

But, you were completely unaware that Whaley said that the man he chose was bawling out the police and complaining about being placed in lineups alongside teenagers.

Perhaps you should stop commenting on subjects that you are clueless on.

So my direct question to you (AGAIN), do you believe Knapp was bawling out the police or were you wrong to say Whaley chose Knapp?  It's one or the other.

Holy cow! You just can't admit anything, can you?

WHALEY told the WC that he chose the No. 2 man, and WHALEY said that that man was the third man to come out, and WHALEY wrote on his timesheet that he picked up the passenger at 12:30, and Montgomery's handwritten statement from Whaley did *not* say that Whaley chose No. 3.

It is really simple. You keep ducking the real issues. And, no, I was not unaware that Whaley said that Oswald was bawling out the police over the lineup, but you were apparently unaware of the contradictions in Whaley's identification and you're still ducking them, or else you knew about them but chose to ignore them.

Anyone not blinded by WC worship can see in Whaley's testimony that he was all over the place about his identification and was clearly trying to qualify it with all sorts of caveats and disclosures about the lineup, about the man he chose, and how his statements were taken. 

We'll just keep going around in circles because you will keep up the silly pretense that Whaley's "identification" was straightforward and definite and because you will keep ignoring the obvious problems with his identification and with the lineup, and the enormous problem of the 12:30 pickup time on his timesheet.

On 4/7/2023 at 11:41 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Yes Ron, you could say that about the Douglass book, and its good in that regard.

When you see my review of Selverstone's pastiche, I used Jim for a couple of footnotes.

One of the best things in JIm's  book is his examination of the beginnings of the riot at Hue in August of 1963..

I thought that was  excellently done.  He clearly suggests that the explosive used in the first explosion was likely from the CIA.

If he is right about that, its an example of life imitating art. Its out of Graham Greene.  And it translates as the CIA wanting to get rid of Diem.   I mean remember the famous Richard Starnes column?

But in my listing above, I limited myself to only the books that were exclusively about Kennedy and Vietnam.  That is a genre that did not exist prior to Oliver Stone's film and the first edition of Newman's book. And that, in and of itself, tells you a lot about how bad the historians were on the subject.  It was inexcusable.  And that is one reason they did not like Stone's film.  Same with the journalists and newspapers.  Except for bits and pieces that were never collated, they also ignored the sea change that took place once Johnson  arrived back in Washington.  

According to Peter Scott, who is another valuable source on this, there was no big meeting set for VIetnam at that time.  It was only supposed to be JFK and Lodge with the latter getting fired. Johnson made it a big meeting, kept Lodge, and everyone understood from his martial tone that things were going to change in Indochina.  I have stuff in my review about this point.  Scott notes that the very lexicon which LBJ used was unheard of from Kennedy.

P.S.  Mike Swanson, who wrote a good book on Laos and Vietnam, Why the Vietnam War?  did not want to review Selverstone's book because it was so bad. Instead he will do a supplement to my review about where Selverstone came from.

This is really sad to see. You realize that Douglass is a 9/11 Truther, right? Right? Yet you're citing him on the Vietnam War???

And now you're citing Mike Swanson??? His book on the Vietnam War is pathetic. Leaving aside the problematic nature of his portrayal of the war, the limited number of sources he cites, and his apparent unawareness of the historic information revealed in released/translated North Vietnamese sources, he makes readers wonder about his level of education with the numerous grammatical and spelling errors in his book. 

You further discredit your competency to discuss the Vietnam War when you praise Fletcher Prouty's "insights" on the Vietnam War:

          His insights on Vietnam, which he wrote in the eighties, are simply remarkable. And if you have not read his articles from that period, you do not understand just how insightful he was.

Prouty's "insights" were not "remarkable"; they were idiotic and loony. The man was a fraud and a genuine nutjob. He spent years cozying up with Willis Carto and other Holocaust deniers at Liberty Lobby and the IHR. He even had one of his books republished by the IHR. He also appeared numerous times on Liberty Lobby's radio program and recommended that people read the lobby's anti-Semitic newspaper The Spotlight. When he was asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, he would only say, "I'm no authority in that area."

Among his many other nutty activities, such as defending Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, Prouty peddled the Iron Mountain Report hoax. Liberty Lobby reprinted thousands of copies of the report. Prouty even claimed that he interviewed one of the members of the secret Iron Mountain Special Study Group, an amazing scoop, given that the group did not exist!

These are the kinds of fringe, unqualified authors you cite against Selverstone's book?

You place yourself on the very fringe regarding the Vietnam War when you insist on accepting the belated, convenient stories by certain JFK loyalists that he told them he was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election no matter what, especially in the face of the evidence that Dr. Selverstone presents in his book. Even Dr. Ed Moise, who is decidedly liberal, rejects these tales, as I documented in an earlier reply. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to repeat his rejection: 

          The contemporary records of the Kennedy administration give a pretty clear picture of planning for a withdrawal that was conditional on the war going well. By far the best evidence that Kennedy had made a decision to withdraw even if the war went badly--to abandon Vietnam-- as in the memories of a few of his associates, who said, years after 
his death, that they remembered his having told them that he had decided to abandon the war. This reviewer has never found these witnesses’ testimony convincing; it is too difficult to reconcile their memories of Kennedy’s thinking with the picture one gets from 
contemporary records. (H-Diplo Article Review No. 265c)

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't know if Noontide republished Secret Team or not. But I couldn't find anything either. And it made me wonder why it is that Michael makes all of these anti-Prouty claims without doing a fact-check.

 

Oh, sheesh. Go read the Wikipedia article on Prouty:

     Prouty also sold the reprint rights for The Secret Team to the Noontide Press, the publishing arm for the Institute for Historical Review, a holocaust denial organization.^[28][27]

27 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I cannot speak to Prouty or the issue of his association with Carto, Liberty Lobby, and IHR, but I can say solidly that Michael Griffith is accurate on the anti-semitism and holocaust denial that some here--amazingly and jaw-dropping to me--are denying was really the case, as if this might be a case of a few bad apples in an otherwise pluralistic organization and publication.

Not so. I lived in Los Angeles in the 1970s, and I used to see copies of Spotlight, the mass-circulation newspaper. Apart from a few guest columnists recruited by the publication who may not personally have shared the actually fascist, anti-semitic core raison d'etre of Spotlight, there was no non-antisemitic component of Liberty Lobby and Spotlight. This was not like the John Birch Society where that would be accurate description (that is, non-antisemitic extreme conservatives as a part of the core mix of JBS which itself institutionally sought to suppress anti-semitism internal to its own; not so with Liberty Lobby).

Carto behind the whole thing of Liberty Lobby had actual connections and ideological lineage from the European far-right, neo-fascist political parties which exist in Britain and most nations in Europe.

This was not minor or collateral but core to what Carto and Liberty Lobby were about.

Any denials by Liberty Lobby that Liberty Lobby was anti-semitic are just wrong. This was a toxic organization, sucking in readers by populist-conspiracy type issues, every issue of Spotlight mixing those "outreach" articles with anti-Jewish and anti-black (yes, racist against blacks) articles, often in the form of mocking reporting on news stories.

I was at a party once in Los Angeles and met a prominent local hard-core libertarian who was on one of the boards of the IHS (Institute for Historical Studies, the holocaust-denial group of Carto and Liberty Lobby). He cheerfully described himself to me as "their token non-antisemite" on their board.

That is, everybody knew what Liberty Lobby was about. He knew. That's why he called himself, which he thought was humorous, their "token non-antisemite" invited on for appearances.

Nobody then reading Spotlight who had what a friend long ago liked to call "an IQ two points above plant life" could read that publication and not see that this was anti-Jewish and anti-black, racist and, with only a slight bit more discernment, an American outreach of old-fashioned post-WW2 European National Socialism.

I disagree with Michael Griffith on many things, and again I am not speaking to the issue of Prouty, but on Spotlight and Liberty Lobby and IHR, the pushback against Griffith on those organizations' descriptions as anti-semitic and toxic et al, is just astonishing. It is either ignorance or denial, but it is not truthful. On those points, Griffith is just plain right.  

Thank you for this, Greg. Yes, it is jaw dropping to see some people in this thread denying the ugly facts about Liberty Lobby and their newspaper The Spotlight and the IHR.

I would just again repeat the fact that Prouty

-- Appeared 10 times in a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio program (as the ADL noted)

-- Allowed the IHR to republish his book The Secret Team via its publishing arm Noontide Press, which also published numerous Holocaust-denying books 

-- Praised Carto and Marcellus and said he was "proud" and "privileged" to have the IHR republish his book

-- Lined up to be a character witness for Carto in his lawsuit with the IHR (IHR sued Carto for embezzlement and won)

-- Recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight (the newspaper itself proudly advertised this fact)

-- And when asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." 

I've provided sources for every one of these points. 

It is especially disturbing to see a moderator chiming in and defending this garbage. Indeed, he just made the amazing statement that "I haven't seen anybody here denying that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic." Perhaps reading comprehension lessons are in order.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This doesn't benefit paycheck-to-paycheck Americans.

Uh, not, it's not. 

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jeff,

      Thanks for delivering this knockout punch to Michael Griffith's mcadams.edu, Prouty-defaming nonsense.

      Hopefully, Kirk Galloway will eventually figure out that "Liberty Lobby" Griffith has been knocked out.

      (I'm not holding my breath.)

LOL! This is beyond comical. So you consider a "knockout punch" to be a reply that relies on Prouty's denials?! Really?! In short, whatever Prouty said, you will gullibly and gladly gobble up, no matter how absurd and demonstrably false it was. I notice you did not address a single point I made in my previous reply, nor did Jeff Carter. 

Tell me: Do you believe Prouty when he said that he interviewed a member of the secret Iron Mountain Special Study Group? Hint: There was no such group, and the Iron Mountain Report, reprinted by Liberty Lobby, was later exposed as a hoax.

What would you say if someone asked you, "What do you think of Willis Carto's claim that the Holocaust never happened?" Any normal, halfway educated person in the Western world would say, "that's absurd and obscene." But when Prouty was asked this question, he would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." A sickening and revealing dodge.

Why didn't Prouty ever explain why he appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years? Why didn't he explain why he said he was "proud and privileged" to have the IHR republish his nutty book The Secret Team? Why didn't he explain why he praised Carto and Marcellus for having the courage and vision to republish his nutty book?

50 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Mr. Griffith, simple question. Did Lee Harvey Oswald murder Patrolman Tippit?

Here's my answer:

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: What you left out is the fact that "the critic" referred  has engaged a process of insults and name-calling from the start in the interest of reputational disparagement,

 

The other day, for example," the critic" offered a  list of twelve bullet points to bolster his argument,

 

Hmmm, "Process of insults and name calling." Wasn't the first title to this thread something to in effect to say, that only crackpots don't believe Fletcher Prouty? Do you think such an autocratic title may have set a tone? Did you ever consider, Jeff, that maybe you were entering a personal vendetta that one member was driven to post against another to settle some butthurt score?

 

Ok, but let's get back to substance.

 

Jeff, Your first paragraph, I couldn't stand. Why are you calling him "the critic?" His name is Michael, Jeff. It looked like you were trying to skirt around not answering Michael's points, and attacking Michael personally, and hiding it by not giving him a name.

 

Ok, but in the next paragraph, I congratulate you for making the first substantive counterpoint against Michael. For almost 2 pages I saw Michael make a case, and it was met with total BS responses, making Michael the issue.

I'll deal with what I think are Jeff's major points.

 

Jeff: for example, the characterization of a “close and prolonged” relationship with the Lobby's top leadership when there is no record to even suggest the parties had ever met or corresponded in any way.

 

So "close and prolonged" is a quotation from Michael? As far as "close" , it  might be difficult without direct quotes or evidence that they vacation with each other, for example. But as far as prolonged, the duration of speaking engagements does mean something.

 

But in fairness, Micheal does answer back in spades, concerning Mark Lane and implicating Prouty.

Mark Lane never, but Prouty has!

 

-- never recommended that people read The Spotlight-------Did Prouty?, do you have the quote, Michael?

-- never praised Carto and Marcellus          ----------Again, a direct quote?

-- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination                        

-- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so                   

Ok, for these 4 charges, can you provide any direct quotes, dates and places, Michael?.

 

-- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board    Well, that should be easy to prove. Jeff responds with Prouty's outright denial. Prouty:  "I never go to their own meetings"

 

****

And of course, fair is fair Jeff. Why did you snip out this sentence from your Liberty Lobby, wikipedia submission?

"Critics also charged the newspaper with subtly incorporating antisemitic and white racialist undertones in its articles, and with carrying advertisements in the classified section for openly neo-N-azi groups and books."

 

Next point:

Jeff: Or cite a willingness to be a “character witness” which not only never materialized but there is also no contextual information available to describe the process by which that allegedly occurred. (the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief)

Michael, what proof do you have of that?

Jeff:(the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief)

That's vague Jeff, what article?, maybe you can further explain that.

 

I do like your overview, Jeff.

Jeff: That said, using the Liberty Lobby as a stick is an effective point of argument as it, by default, puts a cross-examination on the backfoot, in a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of way." Faced with that sort of inflamed rhetoric, one might decide is is best to avoid the topic altogether and forego any sort of cross-examination.

 

Sure, you seem confident that Michael is very aware, and doing his "prosecutor brief " very adeptly.

 

Jeff's quote of Prouty: That sole speech was years ago and was no different than the speech I gave at the Holocaust Memorial Conference.  ---If true, a very good point as to Prouty's non partisanship on the issue.

Prouty:"I do admit to having been a rather active public speaker for all types of audiences, on a commercial except for Rotary".  "They (Libert Lobby) had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join.

 

This sounds like it's coming from a guy, whose very conscious of charges that will be leveled on him in the future, and his excuse is, he goes where the money is. Watching him fold in that hearing, makes me a little more uneasy.

 

Anyway, this is actually what a discussion would be, people listening to each other and responding to their points.

 

I've already supplied all the evidence/sources that Jeff Carter requests. He just keeps ignoring them. I suggest he re-read my previous seven replies in this thread. His refusal to deal honestly with the facts about Prouty and Liberty Lobby/IHR/Spotlight is very sad, to say the least. Here are some additional sources on Prouty and his relationship with Liberty Lobby/IHR, ones that I haven't cited yet:

RIGHT-WOOS-LEFT-Berlet-Report.pdf (politicalresearch.org)

Toxic to Democracy

Transcript: When 'Populism' Has a Right-Wing Agenda (radioproject.org)

JFK Article-Print Version (edwardjayepstein.com)

You make a good point about Prouty's attempt to explain why he spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention. He liked to mention that he also spoke at a Holocaust memorial conference, but it's clear that he did so only for money, and perhaps as cover for his anti-Semitic associations, because the speech he gave at the memorial conference was very different from the one he gave at the Liberty Lobby convention. Prouty conveniently failed to mention this.

Prouty also failed to mention that he appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show, Radio Free America, 10 times over a four-year period. When Prouty was asked about serving on a Liberty Lobby board, he claimed he never actually attended. When he was advised that his name still appeared on the list of board members and was asked if he would ensure that his name was removed, he declined. Prouty also forgot to mention that he once blamed high oil prices on the Israelis.

I haven't even talked about Prouty's comical use of the fictional Iron Mountain Report. He didn't realize the report was a complete hoax. Prouty even claimed he spoke with a member of the Iron Mountain Special Study Group! That's amazing, since the group never existed! Liberty Lobby distributed thousands of copies of the Iron Mountain Report. I'm guessing that Prouty learned of the report from Liberty Lobby. 

Finally, when Prouty was asked about Carto's belief that the Holocaust was a hoax, what did he say? Did he say, "Well, of course, I reject that. That's crazy"? Nope. Did he at least say, "If he believes that, he's wrong"? Nope. When asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, Prouty would only say, "I'm no authority in that area" (Item 02.pdf (hood.edu). ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

This is just one of several statements that indicate Prouty shared the anti-Semitic views of his buddy Carto.

16 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

So then, you do indeed believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

Strange, but okay I guess.

in reply to that evasive, juvenile argument, I'll just say "see my previous three replies." 

58 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I still think it’s a smear against Prouty intended to reveal him as an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. We might as well dismiss Mark Lane too, who not only defended Liberty Lobby but also worked for Jim Jones. Yet it’s undeniable how much good work Lane did on the JFK case. It’s called shoot the messenger right? 

I don't understand this logic. Lane worked as an attorney. Attorneys sometimes work for sleazy clients. Lane's legal work for Liberty Lobby hardly does him any favors in the credibility department, but he 

-- never recommended that people read The Spotlight

-- never praised Carto and Marcellus

-- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination

-- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so

-- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board

-- did not appear 10 times over a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio show that frequently hosted Holocaust deniers, neo-N-azis, and white supremacists.

Lane's conduct as an attorney for Liberty Lobby in their libel lawsuits against journalists and publications was disreputable, as the DC U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its decision, but this is still far removed and much different from what Prouty did. 

To speak to a point that Kirk made, yes, I know it is hard for people to abandon major claims that they've made in film, books, and articles for years. I understand it is embarrassing and frustrating. But credibility and scholarly honesty demand that it be done. Better late than never, and the sooner, the better.

It is just tragic that Oliver Stone got hoodwinked by Prouty and decided to run with his claims. Stone's film JFK would have been so much stronger and harder to attack if it had not included Prouty's claims. 

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I thought other than the fumbling around with Zoom the broadcast was quite interesting. I've always been skeptical of the Z Film alterations bit and remain unconvinced of those claims.

I never really thought about it before but when Janet brought the rifle out for the show and tell session my BS meter reacted when I could really see the scale of the rifle in someone's hands close up. I tried to imagine somebody sneaking that into a building or car, even broken down and covered, without it being noticed. It doesn't compare to a fist full of curtain rods.

That rifle is a substantial piece of equipment and if the WC or anyone claims he smuggled that thing past more than a couple people into the car and the depository building it's difficult to believe.

Just as importantly (maybe moreso), LHO would have had to consider the night before HOW to sneak it into the car and building, past potentially tens or dozens of people in close proximity and accept the risk of being caught in an obvious attempt at the life of the President. That rifle doesn't read "curtain rods" even if he had a dozen 36" x 1 1/2" rods. If I were him the only solution would be to bring the rifle in over a period of time, unless someone else brought it. There's no chance I would suddenly decide the night before to grab it and throw it into Frazier's car without being nearly certain I'd be caught. No way. He'd get "What ya got the rifle for, Lee?" more likely than not. I just can't picture it.

I think you'd find Doug Horne and David Mantik's research on Z film alteration to be compelling. Here's my own humble offering on the subject:

zfilmaltered.pdf - Google Drive

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Michael: Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto,

 

That's true, there's only been a very superficial interest in the Liberty Lobby concerning Hunt's litigation.That's a little like people who come here from the right, never hearing of the Koch Bros.

But Geez, Can we at least admit Michael knows more about the Liberty Lobby than anyone else here?

 

What I see is Michael's has made all the recent points here, making a pretty solid case that it's not likely Prouty doesn't know who the Liberty Lobby is. And there's been zero points made against his assertions except an attempt to make this issue about Michael himself and impugn his motives on this thread, and  now another thread,, which is always a tactic of people who are losing the argument.

You have a choice, whether to really bone up and attack Michael's  repeated incidents of Prouty support  for the Liberty Lobby or try to attack Michael's assertion further that Prouty is L. Ron Hubbard fan, while if true, by itself wouldn't be a deal breaker, but is just more icing on the cake. Or  2) choose to let it ride and say it's impossible to know what was going on in Prouty's head, and damn it, I believe him!

 

Chris: We tend to ever increasingly fall into the emotional thinking, attacking the man as opposed to specifically what they have said, the matter in contention. 

I'm not sure I would call that emotional, Chris. If Prouty spent several years as an ardent defender of the Liberty Lobby, it says a whole lot about his judgment.  But it's true, it's not a reason to dismiss everything he says whole cloth, as I previously  said.

But let's examine your emotional thinking point from the other side.

This forum is heavily wedded to Oliver Stone's "JFK". It is a movie without a climax per se. The most powerful moment by everyone's account here is the meeting between Garrison and Prouty. That is the revealing moment of the movie. The articulation of the "whodunit."

 Now we, who have invested so much emotion in that scene, and now the title of this thread has been turned from a title that originally implied everybody who denies Prouty's assertions is a crackpot to having to entertain the assertion that maybe Prouty himself is a crackpot! That is a very bitter pill to swallow. This of course was never going to be accepted here gracefully.

I felt like I was the only one in this forum who felt any disappointment in Prouty when he folded like a lounge chair in front of that questioning body Prouty stood before.*  He didn't stick up for anything he had previously said! Didn't that bother anybody here? And I know there are factors we can't know, such as Prouty's fear maybe of losing his pension etc.

My guess is that's because Prouty then becomes like a Garrison martyr figure here, who later lost his confidence and came off very badly in public appearances but  we sympathize with his frustration, just as we sympathize with Prouty's capitulation because both of them are  being grinded down by the deep state.

I think the evidentiary basis for the JFKAC  still holds up very well, Thank you, without some cleverly written dialog in a movie, or even Prouty's viewpoint. By that, I'm not saying, he has no credibility. I just don't have to believe him.

* I assume his assertions about getting rid of Trujillo were after his testimony, or it would have really interesting if he was questioned about making that assertion. Of course not saying it couldn't be true.

Glory hallelujah! Some sanity! Some rational thinking! Thank you.

Let's put it this way: If Prouty had been a lone-gunman theorist, nobody in this thread would be offering lame excuses and vacuous denials for his close, long-term relationship with Carto, Marcellus, Liberty Lobby, and the IHR. 

I think if you look more closely into Scientology and Hubbard, you will conclude that Prouty's defense of them was almost as disgraceful as his relationship with the above-named Holocaust deniers.

Quote

Jeff Carter said:

Prouty’s source for the information re: Jonestown was an After-Action Report written for the Joint Chiefs which included a detailed chronology.

“Guyana Operations,” After-Action Report, 18-27 November, 1978, prepared by the Special Study Group, Operations Directorate, USMC Directorate, Joint Chiefs of Staff

This report is also referred in an article linked below by the respected journalist Jim Hougan, who did several pieces on Jonestown.     https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16572#_ftn24

Oh, please, just stop. Just stop with the nutcase material. Is there no loony, bizarre theory you won't defend just because Prouty floated it? The JCS and the IC had nothing to do with the Jonestown tragedy.

21 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you think the Babushka Lady was a conspirator?

That thought has never occurred to me. I've never thought about it. In theory, it's possible that she was there to film the shooting for the plotters, but I have no opinion on the matter.

Whoever she was, I don't think she was Beverly Oliver. For one thing, she looks a bit heavy to be a young club dancer. 

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In this interview, recorded in February 2023, Gregory recalls these events and, as a scholar and skilled researcher, debunks several assassination conspiracy theories by demonstrating that Lee Harvey Oswald indeed killed Kennedy and acted alone — that the Oswald he once called a friend had the motive, the intelligence, and the means to commit one of the most infamous crimes in American history.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/lone-gunman-the-man-who-knew-lee-harvey-oswald/

From the Hoover Institution.....

It is amazing how "conspiracy theories" are always getting "debunked"...

Gregory has demonstrated LHO did the deed and acted alone...

I wonder how LHO performed the smoke-and-bang show on the GK? 

And fired his single-shot bolt-action rifle twice in about one second?

If this stuff isn't getting planted...then I will eat my hat.....

FYI, your link is to a National Review article, not to an article in Reason magazine.

I don't believe Beverly Oliver was the Babushka Lady. I just don't buy it. 

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ok I’ll bite - list some Democratic Party good ideas with the same detail

I decided I should answer your reply separately. Initially, I included my response to your reply in my response to Niederhut.

Well, first of all, I have a confession to make. The first two ideas in my list of "Republican" ideas came straight from the 2020 Democratic Party platform, virtually verbatim. I was baiting Niederhut to see if he would attack them. Anyway, here are Democratic Party ideas that I think have merit, including the two fake GOP ideas that I just mentioned:

-- Preventing states from blocking municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly owned broadband networks.

-- Negotiating strong and enforceable standards for workers in our trade deals. Future trade agreements should build on the pro-worker provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020.

-- Expanding healthcare to everyone at either no cost or minimal cost. I actually don't think Obamacare went far enough. I thought it was a major step in the right direction, but I pretty much agree with Bernie Sanders when it comes to health care: I think it is a right and that it should be universal. 

-- Not requiring employment to qualify for Medicaid. Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who's now running in the GOP primary, proudly reports how he removed 20,000 people from Medicaid by pushing through an employment requirement. I think this was wrong, if not immoral.

-- I agree with most of the Democrats' proposals for clean water and protecting wildlife areas. I think that too many Republicans are tone deaf when it comes to protecting our water and wildlife. I disagreed when Trump repealed key aspects of the Clean Water Act, and I'm glad that the Biden administration has undone that action.

-- I agree with those Democrats who, like many Republicans, believe it's unfair and unwise to force American companies to compete with foreign companies that have much lower labor and regulatory costs. I was glad that a large number of Democrats voted for the USMCA.

Let me add a few more:

-- I agree that abortion pills for use in the first week or two after conception should be legal. I don't agree with the GOP effort to ban them. I respect their motives, but I just disagree with their effort here. I am strongly pro-life, but I think banning morning-after or week/two weeks-after abortion pills is going too far. I do agree that once there is a heartbeat and there are brain waves, abortion should not be allowed, but I think women should have the option of using an abortion pill in the first week or two after conception.

-- Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Some Republicans also support this, but many do not. Democrats deserve credit for finally making this happen (although it does not take effect until 2026).

-- Expanding Medicaid eligibility by raising the income threshold for qualification. Since I believe in universal health care, I support any interim effort to provide health insurance to more people.

-- I tend to lean toward the Democratic view when it comes to draconian work requirements for receiving welfare. I agree that able-bodied people should do some kind of valid community work if they're on welfare, but mothers with children, for example, should be exempted from this requirement. 

-- I agree that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest. Here, too, many Republicans agree, but many, if not the majority, do not. Most Republican-controlled states that have passed abortion bans have not made exceptions for rape and incest. I disagree with that and agree with the Democrats that such exceptions should be made. 

-- I agree substantially with the Democrats when it comes to granting some kind of legal status to illegal immigrants and to "Dreamers." As long as illegal immigrants have not committed any serious crimes since their arrival, I think they should be granted some kind of legal status with an eventual pathway to citizenship. However, I think they should go to the "back of the line" so that legal immigrants receive priority, and that the border should be secured before any move toward citizenship is begun. I believe Dreamers should be granted citizenship immediately.

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Just answer the questions, Griffith, and spare us your deflective buzzwords, already.

If you can't come up with the answers, I'll help you out-- since this is the "Education" Forum.

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

I repeat that this is nutcase material. These are not "deflective buzzwords"; they are factual descriptions of the garbage you are peddling here. I am amazed that the moderators are letting you taint the JFK case by posting this nutty stuff in this subforum.

The 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theories about the WTC towers, the Pentagon attack, etc., have been debunked to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated populace. 

And, the 9/11 Commission factually and logically explained the short selling of United and American Airlines stock shortly before 9/11. Again, as I've pointed out to you before, one of the major sellers of United stock on 9/6 also bought 115,000 shares of American Airlines stock on 9/10. Even mainstream liberal fact-checkers reject the theory that the selling was suspicious or indicative or foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. 

18 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No Sir.  You are changing the subject in an attempt to avoid answering my original question.

You said that Whaley didn't pick Oswald at the lineup.  You said Whaley picked the #2 man while Oswald was the #3 man.  You said that Whaley actually picked Knapp.

I told you what Whaley said about the guy he did pick, about how the guy was acting; and it certainly was not Knapp.  Unless you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

Your "original question" misses the point and dodges a bunch of contrary evidence. 

Whaley told the WC that he picked the No. 2 man, and the No. 2 man was not Oswald. Whaley even specified that the man he picked was the third man to come out, who was not Oswald. Montgomery's first handwritten statement taken from Whaley said nothing about his having chosen the No. 3 man.

Yes, of course, Whaley also said that anyone could have picked Oswald because Oswald was bawling out the police and objecting to the lineup. But, but he also said, over and over again, that he picked the No. 2 guy and that that guy was the third man out, which rules out Oswald. This is what's called a contradiction.

And this is not to mention the damning 12:30 pickup time noted on Whaley's timesheet, which categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. The WC's claim that Whaley entered his pickup times in 15-minute increments is demonstrably false. The Commission's claim that the pickup time was actually 12:47 contradicts their 15-minute-intervals claim and makes no sense anyway, since, if Whaley did enter his times in 15-minute increments (which he didn't), he would have entered the time as either 12:45 or 1:00. 

How many times are you going to restate the undisputed fact that Whaley acknowledged that, yes, certainly, Oswald was bawling out the police and complaining about the lineup, without addressing the obvious implications for the fairness of the lineup and the admissibility of an identification made at such a lineup? 

Any honest judge would have tossed the identification based on the gross unfairness and irregularity of the lineup, not to mention the suspicious contradictions in the three Whaley statements taken by the police. 

First off, Oswald had requested a lawyer. He should not have been forced to appear in a lineup until his request for a lawyer had been met. 

Second, in a valid, legal, and fair police lineup, Oswald would not have been made to appear to stand out in any way. The clothing of the other lineup members would have been comparable to his--not exactly the same but comparable. The other members would have been of the same approximate height and weight and age--not exact but approximate. This is just common sense and basic fairness. 

And, needless to say, no witness should never, ever, ever have been allowed to view a lineup while Oswald was vocally complaining about the lineup's fairness. I know you WC apologists are willing to say the Earth is flat rather than admit anything in Oswald's favor, but, sheesh, this point seems so obvious and self-evident that it's hard to fathom how any credible person could deny it. 

9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

Quote

This does not square at all with the description of the paper as appears on Wikipedia:

"In 1975, Liberty Lobby began publishing a weekly newspaper called The Spotlight, which ran news and opinion articles with a very populist and anti-establishment slant on a variety of subjects, but gave little indication of being extreme-right or neo-National Socialist. However, critics charged The Spotlight was intended as a subtle recruiting tool for the extreme right, using populist-sounding articles to attract people from all points on the political spectrum including liberals, moderates, and conservatives, and special-interest articles to attract people interested in such subjects as alternative medicine."

So you are actually trying to whitewash The Spotlight and pretend that it really wasn't extreme, racist, and anti-Semitic, all because Prouty urged people to read it. This is shameful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for DC noted that The Spotlight repeatedly publicized the claim that the Holocaust never occurred: 

          The Spotlight has given extensive publicity to the fantastic claim that the Holocaust, the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews by N-azi Germany, never occurred. (Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 | Casetext Search + Citator)

I repeat the fact that both the DC District Court and the DC U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic and cited The Spotlight as part of the evidence for that conclusion:

          The district court went on to hold that, to the extent the charge of anti-Semitism had any objectively verifiable factual content, the statement was substantially true. Relying upon the contents of a multivolume file Liberty Lobby kept on publications about Jews and upon the views expounded in Liberty Lobby's official organ, The Spotlight, the district court found that appellees' "evidence of Liberty Lobby's institutional anti-Semitism in its most malign sense" was "compelling." (Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 | Casetext Search + Citator)

Now, I notice you snipped out the following statement from the paragraph you quoted from the Wikipedia article:         

          "Critics also charged the newspaper with subtly incorporating antisemitic and white racialist undertones in its articles, and with carrying advertisements in the classified section for openly neo-N-azi groups and books."

Gee, why did you omit that statement? You didn't even use ellipses to tell readers you were omitting it. You also ignored Wikipedia's article on The Spotlight, which includes the following observation:

          The Spotlight was called "the most widely read publication on the fringe right" by the Anti-Defamation League, who also stated the newspaper "reflected Carto's conspiracy theory of history" and called the paper anti-Semitic.

The Spotlight also printed favorable articles about KKK leader David Duke when he ran for president, and reprinted articles from Lyndon LaRouche's publication. In one issue, The Spotlight said that "political Zionism is the most ruthless, wealthy, powerful, and evil political force in the history of the Western world." (Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 | Casetext Search + Citator).

Again, shame on you for trying to whitewash such a vile, racist, and anti-Semitic newspaper as The Spotlight, and all because Prouty disgracefully urged people to read it. 

Quote

Prouty never suggested anywhere ever that he was sent South Pole to specifically “help strip JFK of security”, and certainly not on pp 283-285 of the book. The “suggestions” (an idea put forward for consideration)  Prouty did entertain never once amounted to a “claim” (an assertion that something is the case) he had to back-peddle from, as can be easily confirmed from the primary sources. 

Oh, get real. Any honest, rational person with sufficient reading skills can read Prouty's statements about his South Pole trip in his book and see that he clearly implied that he was sent on the trip to prevent him from having any chance to observe or be involved with presidential protection for the motorcade:

          I have always wondered, deep in my own heart, whether that strange invitation that removed me so far from Washington and from the center of all things clandestine that I knew so well might have been connected to the events that followed. Were there things that I knew, or would have discovered, that made it wise to have me far from Washington, along with others, such as the Kennedy cabinet, who were in midair over the Pacific Ocean en route to Japan, far from the scene? 

          I do not know the answer to that question, although many of the things that I have observed and learned from that time have led me to surmise that such a question might be well founded. After all, I knew that type of work very well. I had worked on presidential protection and knew the great extent to which one goes to ensure the safety of the chief executive. Despite all this, established procedures were ignored on the President’s trip to Dallas on November 22, 1963. (pp. 285-286)

Leaving aside the fact that Prouty exaggerated his experience with presidential protection, he was clearly implying that the plotters sent him to the South Pole to keep him away from DC so that he would have no chance to monitor or be involved with security for the motorcade.

I should add that the movie JFK expressly made this claim, based on Prouty's input, and Prouty never walked it back until his ARRB interview. 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

This is nutjob material. This craziness has been answered and explained ad nauseam, but you and your fellow radical true believers won't listen. You won't listen because you want to believe this stuff. I'm guessing it fills some emotional need and provides a paradigm that somehow gives meaning to your life. 

It's curious that you and Sandy don't want to know what good ideas I think the Democrats have, only the good ideas I think the Republicans have. It says something about your bias and about how far on the fringe you guys are that you don't think the Republicans have a single good idea. 

But, okay, I'll bite. Here are Republican ideas that I think have merit:

-- Preventing states from blocking municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly owned broadband networks.

-- Negotiating strong and enforceable standards for workers in our trade deals. Future trade agreements should build on the pro-worker provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020.

-- In connection with the above, protecting American jobs by ensuring that American companies are not forced to compete against foreign companies that have a lower tax burden, that pay their workers lower salaries, that have lower safety standards, and that face less expensive regulatory compliance costs. 

-- Promoting charter schools that give parents more control over their children's education.

-- Tuition tax credits or vouchers to enable low-income and middle-income parents to send their kids to private schools (and, yes, there are many private schools that charge the same or less than public school districts in their areas spend per pupil). 

-- Reducing the tax and regulatory burden on small businesses. (My second-youngest son owns a restaurant and has plenty of surreal horror stories about ridiculous regulation and anti-business local inspectors.)

-- Expanding the items that Health Savings Accounts can pay for and repealing the Obama-era regulations that changed a number of OTC drugs into prescription drugs (this was one of Big Pharma's demands for securing their support for Obamacare).

-- Substantially increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as an alternative to hiking the federal minimum wage, since the EITC targets adults 25 and over who are working in a career field that they will likely stay in for a long time, and since the EITC spreads the cost of the wage increase much more broadly than does the minimum wage, thus reducing the burden on employers.

-- Repealing the federal tax on Social Security benefits. 

-- Restoring the treaty system specified by the Constitution, whereby the president negotiates agreements and submits them to the Senate for a vote on ratification, with ratification requiring two-thirds of the senators present and voting. No more treaties or important international agreements being negotiated by the president but not submitted for proper review and ratification to the Senate, in violation of the Constitution. 

17 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Courts

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.

by Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex MierjeskiApril 13, 2:20 p.m. EDT

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

Yes, I read the article earlier this week. It's a bit one-sided and incomplete, wouldn't you say? Perhaps surprisingly, Israeli newspapers have been more measured in their stories on the issue, partly because they've spoken with Jews who know Crow.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Sandy, are you not placing Michael in a double bind here?

Aren't we supposed to refrain from discussion of party politics per se in this section of the forum?

If you spend enough time here, you will realize that this subforum is dominated by ultra-liberals--and not just your average Kamala Harris or Liz Warren type of ultra-liberals but ultra-liberals who are 9/11 Truthers (i.e., who believe 9/11 was an inside job by the MIC-IC and that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-positioned explosives), and/or who think JFK may have been killed because he was gonna reveal UFO secrets, and/or who believe the Moon landings were faked, and/or who believe the Russians stole the 2016 election for Trump (if so, they must have been furious with what they got for their trouble when Trump slapped tariffs on Russian steel, shut down the Russian consulate in Seattle, expelled dozens of Russian diplomats, sold heavy weapons to Ukraine [which Obama had refused to do], pushed NATO nations to increase their defense spending, pulled us out of the Iran nuke deal [an act that Putin harshly condemned], and tried to get Germany to cancel its pipeline deal with Russia, etc.).

If you visit my JFK website and/or read my two JFK books, you will have little or no clue what my personal politics are, because I leave my politics out of my JFK writings. But many of the liberals here insist on injecting their politics into virtually everything they write about the JFK case.

Anthony Summers does the same thing I do. He is actually quite conservative in his politics, but you'd never guess this to read his writings on the assassination. Another prominent and highly regarded author on the JFK case is center-right, but they give no clue of this in their writings (I'm using the generic plural to avoid mentioning the person's gender). 

I don't mind telling people that I'm an eclectic centrist who holds liberal views on some issues, moderate views on some issues, and conservative views on some issues. I just don't think there's any reason to inject one's personal politics into the JFK case. 

The fact that so many liberal authors have injected their politics into the writings on the JFK case is the reason that so many people think that only liberals believe in a conspiracy in the assassination.