Jump to content

Judyth Baker presents JFK Conference Live


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks, Pat. Well said about Roger. My wife even said that he was way too caustic---he acted like his side LOST! He cryptically said--with a slight giggle--that he was not going to be part of Trump's cabinet or government, while also plugging his just-in-time-for-the-inaugural Trump biography. He said a lot more about Hillary and the Democrats that was downright distasteful and not suitable for the venue we were at. I agree with your sentiments 100 percent.

Like I said above, it was very heartening to see how many young people were in the plaza who were genuinely interested and intrigued. It was packed both days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

POST SCRIPT: I saw Groden but kept my distance. He was there on the knoll. I respect Groden...for the most part. I was a little put off by a few things in his last book, especially an alleged "new" autopsy photo he "worked on" to restore which is obviously the mannequin for the "JFK" movie, complete with 1990's-era dispenser on the wall in the background!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks, Vince, for sharing your experience. I'm glad I wasn't there, lest Mr. Stone (not Oliver's son) and I might have come to blows, and I might have ended up on one of the Donald's lists. While some of those who've injected themselves into the JFK story are not all there (IMO), some of them, such as Mr. Stone, have done so for purely cynical reasons, and for personal gain.

There was a time when politicians discussed two opposing viewpoints: one was that the government's job was to help the rich and powerful, so that they could make jobs for those less fortunate, and one was that the government's job was to help those less fortunate, at the expense of the rich and powerful. Well, the verdict of history came in during the Reagan era, and then was confirmed in the Clinton era, and then Bush era, when it was found that cutting taxes on the wealthy hurts the country as a whole, and raising taxes on the wealthy helps the country as a whole. There is no longer any real debate on this. So, instead, the right has succumbed to hate-based politics, where people set up booths outside of post offices with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache, and people like Roger Stone make up all sorts of crap about Hillary being the devil, etc.

It's a tragedy, IMO, that so many of our fellow Americans are stupid enough to fall for it.

Pat,

whether cutting taxes on the wealthy proves to be beneficial to the country or not, this has nothing to do with the question of whether the Federal Government's job is to help "those less fortunate."

The issue is a US Constitutional matter, not a nationally fiscal matter. The Federal Government's responsibilities were designed and clearly laid out by those great men who experienced and rejected England's Big Government, um, overreach and thereby designed a Union of States in which each State is to be responsible for itself to the extent that it is able to and in which the Big Government was assigned minimal power.

That's the way our country was designed, that's the way the Constitution says it's supposed to work, and that's the answer to the question of what its role is supposed to be (and not how it currently is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Pat,

whether cutting taxes on the wealthy proves to be beneficial to the country or not, this has nothing to do with the question of whether the Federal Government's job is to help "those less fortunate."

The issue is a US Constitutional matter, not a nationally fiscal matter. The Federal Government's responsibilities were designed and clearly laid out by those great men who experienced and rejected England's Big Government, um, overreach and thereby designed a Union of States in which each State is to be responsible for itself to the extent that it is able to and in which the Big Government was assigned minimal power.

That's the way our country was designed, that's the way the Constitution says it's supposed to work, and that's the answer to the question of what its role is supposed to be (and not how it currently is).

LOL. I'll let you tell the southern states that there's been a mistake, and that they owe states like California and New York hundreds of billions of dollars.

I mean, really, speak of taxation without representation! Speak of welfare queens! The southern states have been sucking off of California's teat for a hundred years or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. I'll let you tell the southern states that there's been a mistake, and that they owe states like California and New York hundreds of billions of dollars.

I mean, really, speak of taxation without representation! Speak of welfare queens! The southern states have been sucking off of California's teat for a hundred years or more.

I'm not sure you read my point correctly, Pat. I don't know nuthin' about taxes and the country's economy. I spoke nothing about that.

I stated very simply that the Fed Gov's job is not to help the less fortunate or tell you what kind of light bulbs to buy or what kind of shower heads to buy or what kind of insurance to buy or who can use which public bathrooms - that's the very xxxx we rebelled against.

If Georgia (my home state, and where I still live) owes CA or NY any money, I don't know. Don't quite see how that's relevant to my point.

Also, it seems to me that CA's teats have fairly well dried up lately. Not sure anyone's sucking off of them, or even looking at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Pat,

whether cutting taxes on the wealthy proves to be beneficial to the country or not, this has nothing to do with the question of whether the Federal Government's job is to help "those less fortunate."

The issue is a US Constitutional matter, not a nationally fiscal matter. The Federal Government's responsibilities were designed and clearly laid out by those great men who experienced and rejected England's Big Government, um, overreach and thereby designed a Union of States in which each State is to be responsible for itself to the extent that it is able to and in which the Big Government was assigned minimal power.

That's the way our country was designed, that's the way the Constitution says it's supposed to work, and that's the answer to the question of what its role is supposed to be (and not how it currently is).

Glenn,

One of the duties of the Federal Government, according to the Constitution, is to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which naturally includes its citizens. Here's the Taxing and Spending Clause:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...."

States' rights are defined by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

Therefore the Taxing and Spending Clause (above) trumps states' rights.

Note, however, that the interpretation of the Taxing and Spending Clause has been debated, as far back as James Madison versus Alexander Hamilton, with the former taking today's conservative view and the latter taking today's liberal view.

The constitutionality of today's welfare laws have been tested at the Supreme Court level for decades, and the results speak for themselves. The Federal Government indeed does bear the responsibility of creating and maintaining welfare programs, whereas the states bear the responsibility of administering those programs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

I'm not sure you read my point correctly, Pat. I don't know nuthin' about taxes and the country's economy. I spoke nothing about that.

I stated very simply that the Fed Gov's job is not to help the less fortunate or tell you what kind of light bulbs to buy or what kind of shower heads to buy or what kind of insurance to buy or who can use which public bathrooms - that's the very xxxx we rebelled against.

If Georgia (my home state, and where I still live) owes CA or NY any money, I don't know. Don't quite see how that's relevant to my point.

Also, it seems to me that CA's teats have fairly well dried up lately. Not sure anyone's sucking off of them, or even looking at them.

It's 100% relevant to your point. The very same people who cry about state's rights (which is code for Jim Crow, let's not be coy) and welfare queens have no problem with the Federal Govt. taking taxes from the rich northern and western states and spending that money in the south. States like California and New York historically get back 80 cents in fed spending for every dollar they send the fed, while most every southern state (outside Fl, GA, and TX, which apparently break about even) gets back 1.50 or so for every dollar they contribute. And that's not even to mention Alaska, which gets back almost 2 dollars for every dollar contributed.

In other words, things are upside down. Over the past several decades, the very people who've been wanting to go to war with the federal government are the very people benefiting the most from the federal government. Now, this could be changing. States like Michigan and Wisconsin could usually be counted on to send more to the fed than they got back. We'll see if this continues now that they're in the red column. It will be interesting, for that matter, to see if the southern states start bellyaching about "their" money going to Detroit and Milwaukee, when the northern cities have been carrying their butts for a century.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Glenn, You don't know nuthin' about taxes, but it did mean something to our exalted founding Father's and maybe you should know something more about who pays the bills.

You've brought up a point I was going to bring up Pat. With this current electoral system, California is a donor state where both parties just go to get money on their way to Florida or Ohio. The blue states pay  a higher percentage of the tax revenue supporting these basket case states which are overwhelmingly red states. Glenn, I think Georgia might be solvent but there are about 5  states immediately west of you that are just backwards and helped along by the federal government tax contributions of largely blue states. These are the facts and yet in the recipient states, you listen to the average guy talk about his distrust of the federal Government which is completely disingenuous.

Also, it seems to me that CA's teats have fairly well dried up lately. Not sure anyone's sucking off of them, or even looking at them.

Glenn, where have you been??. It's the 6th biggest economy in the world! That's including separate countries! I won't talk about the crazy evaluations in Silicon Valley because they're completely overblown. But do you realize the Central Valley in California is the most productive agricultural valley in the world? 9 of the 10 most agriculturally productive counties in the U.S. are in California. Not saying, we don't have massive problems with potential drought, which isn't just a problem for California but the entire country as such a high percentage of the nations fruits and vegetables come from California and there are a number of crops  that are only grown in California and are exported throughout the world.

And don't get me wrong. There are huge pension problems because for example we pay prison guards over twice what they pay in Texas. And it's very expensive to live here.

But back to the electoral process, whatever the intention of our founding fathers, my vote isn't worth a sh-t except as a protest vote and I'm supposed to drive home from the polls be transfixed on Florida and what new way they'll come up with to mangle the democratic process.

I stated very simply that the Fed Gov's job is not to help the less fortunate.

But probably as a less fortunate state, you are being helped a little by the grace of others.

In California, maybe we could use a few more Republicans and they might demand a rebate from you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's 100% relevant to your point. The very same people who cry about state's rights (which is code for Jim Crow, let's not be coy) and welfare queens have no problem with the Federal Govt. taking taxes from the rich northern and western states and spending that money in the south. States like California and New York historically get back 80 cents in fed spending for every dollar they send the fed, while most every southern state (outside Fl, GA, and TX, which apparently break about even) gets back 1.50 or so for every dollar they contribute. And that's not even to mention Alaska, which gets back almost 2 dollars for every dollar contributed.

In other words, things are upside down. Over the past several decades, the very people who've been wanting to go to war with the federal government are the very people benefiting the most from the federal government. Now, this could be changing. States like Michigan and Wisconsin could usually be counted on to send more to the fed than they got back. We'll see if this continues now that they're in the red column. It will be interesting, for that matter, to see if the southern states start bellyaching about "their" money going to Detroit and Milwaukee, when the northern cities have been carrying their butts for a century.

I was about to respond until I saw you compare my principles and opinions to those of Jim Crow's.

so i have nothing further to discuss with you.

that's very insulting, especially when it's so far from the truth. that kind of crap doesn't do your party much good.

go insult someone else, Pat. K? I'm not the one.

 

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Glenn,

One of the duties of the Federal Government, according to the Constitution, is to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which naturally includes its citizens. Here's the Taxing and Spending Clause:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...."

States' rights are defined by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

Therefore the Taxing and Spending Clause (above) trumps states' rights.

Note, however, that the interpretation of the Taxing and Spending Clause has been debated, as far back as James Madison versus Alexander Hamilton, with the former taking today's conservative view and the latter taking today's liberal view.

The constitutionality of today's welfare laws have been tested at the Supreme Court level for decades, and the results speak for themselves. The Federal Government indeed does bear the responsibility of creating and maintaining welfare programs, whereas the states bear the responsibility of administering those programs.

 

Sandy, there's a difference between the general welfare, which is the phrase that has been the cause of the debate for 200 years, and the welfare of the individual, as opposed to the rights of the individual.

The history of SCOTUS doing its best to rip the Constitution to pieces is well documented. So to put credential on SCOTUS' history of decision making doesn't carry a lot of water.

I feel like i'm the only conservative in this whole damn forum. Now I remember why i lost interest in it last year. It's threads like this and the Hillary one.

i'm done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

I was about to respond until I saw you compare my principles and opinions to those of Jim Crow's.

so i have nothing further to discuss with you.

that's very insulting, especially when it's so far from the truth. that kind of crap doesn't do your party much good.

go insult someone else, Pat. K? I'm not the one.

 

It wasn't meant as an insult, Glenn. But it's an historical fact that "state's rights" has long been short-hand for a "state's right to discriminate against those whom the federal government might otherwise choose to protect." That's just a fact. I mean, really. Do you suppose it was just a coincidence that "state's rights" advocates in the sixties just so happened to be the very people who flipped out over Brown v Board in the fifties? And that it was just a coincidence these people were overwhelmingly white?

For there to have been no correlation, well, then, there must have been a faction of "state's rights" supporters who wanted the states to be independent so these states could be more supportive of integration and voting rights, and not less. I don't recall there being such a faction. Do you?

P.S. I'm not a Dem. Never been one. Lincoln was my hero as a child. I always wanted to be a Republican. The problem is that by the time I was able to vote, the party had been taken over by Reaganites. And it's been downhill ever since. I mean, seriously, I'd take Romney, McCain, Dole or Bush 41 over Trump any ole day.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I love these comments; honest: Chris Newton summed it up best; "Vince and Cyril haven't tried to insert themselves into the story, they are part of the CT community and may have a relationship with the publisher. Whereas Judith has attempted to make herself a part of the "main show". If your publisher creates an event to promote your work (yay) then what can you do if another "speaker" at the same event is what you believe to be a "whacko"? The "right" thing would be to attend (may be contractual anyway), promote your work, be polite and non confrontational. "; MICHAEL WALTON: "Comparing Wecht and Vince with Baker is like...well, there's just no comparison"; GLENN NALL: "I've never known anything about Vince until I encountered him in EF - since then i've read nothing but positive things about him "

THANK YOU for not denigrating me for speaking at the conference as I often was at COPA in 1995 and 1996 ("COPA is an evil organization" etc. etc. etc.) and especially Lancer in 1997 ("Lancer is CIA! It is a dummy front to make money!!!" etc. etc. etc.)

Think how moronic it is to "expel" someone simply for attending: "Well, Vince debunks a certain area of research....but, ewwwww: he attended a certain conference! Even though he is factually sound, I am going to ignore him now." Pretty lame and stupid. To make a very good analogy: "Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK acting alone, if he acted at all...but, ya know what? For whatever reason, he did associate with some unsavory characters and he did beat Marina, so the hell with him."

My wife and I only got to the conference late on Saturday and essentially missed all day Friday, all day Saturday (except saying hello, the dinner, and talking to people after it was over) and a lot of Sunday, other than my presentation and a couple others. I was TOLD by several that this was the best of the four Judyth conferences and was the best attended, as well (I heard Lancer did well, too, AND I  did see a tremendous amount of people in the plaza on Saturday and Sunday, especially non-researchers and very young people).

Here is my assessment, right or wrong (based on what I was able to see and what I heard, second hand):

1) Judyth is not central to most anyone's research so no one either shares their private opinions (hint hint) or cares---so enough of the McCarthy-era litmus tests, alright? We struggling authors and researchers must take what we can get to share our wares and spread the word. AGAIN, you may not believe it now, but there was a time COPA and especially Lancer rivaled or exceeded the anti-Judyth sentiment. In fact, a certain author I won't name still won't speak to me SPECIFICALLY for speaking at the 11/22/97 Lancer conference after he pleaded with me not to!;

2) To be honest, most people were there for Dr. Wecht, Sean Stone (the brilliant son of Oliver Stone and an author, as well), myself (hey--it is what it is LOL), and Roger Stone;

3) The Rafael Cruz "stuff" and LBJ-did-it theory reared their ugly heads, despite people who have debunked these notions (and, for the latter, especially Joan Mellen, who was denigrated without any real substance. It seems people were mad that she rained on their parade. She DOES fervently believe in conspiracy and that LBJ was a crook AND her Garrison book is great...but people--READ BARR MCCLELLAN, who presented like it was 2003 still, and Roger Stone (perhaps others I missed)--didn't get the memo, chose to ignore it, or, in Roger's case, seemed to insinuate something is amiss;

4) speaking of Roger- he is a great speaker and, privately, a nice guy (!), despite his aura on television, but more than half his talk was about Trump and calling Hillary a psychopath...uh, I thought this was a JFK conference?

5) Shane O'Sullivan's RFK presentation was brilliant; well done, indeed;

6) I took hundreds of photos and 4 videos that can be found on my Facebook page and (in the case of the videos) You Tube. The conference itself can be found here (it was not just streamed live- it was ARCHIVED): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY3zHbtOHfX28G4_IifT_3A/videos

Thank you for your consideration and, remember: have a heart. :)

 

Vince Palamara

 

Yikes! I just watched most of Fetzer's presentation. They should have paid the audience to sit through such nonsense. He hasn't backed off from anything. Every wacky thing he ever proposed is in there, plus some bonuses. Frank Sturgis was not only a shooter, but one of the best shooters in the world at the time of the assassination, etc. And then, after Fetzer, up comes Beverly Oliver, who not only tells her usual story, which may or may not be believable, but why she believes Oswald wasn't a shooter, including that the window wasn't open far enough. Yikes again.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dawn Meredith said:

Hey Pat I was surprised by you comments about Sean Stone. I love him.  And I think he is totally sincere. 

Did Fetzer get into his Paul is dead insanity?

Happy Thanksgiving.

Dawn

 

Yikes. Too many Stones.  I have no problem with Sean Stone. I was complaining about Roger Stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...