Behaviour of Members

[Myra Bronstein]

Hmmm, confusing....is it a debate about the behavio(u)r of all forum members, or just about the ones who regularly occupy the "JFK Assassination Debate" section? Or is moving it here an attempt to get even more quality input because some of the most committed members think the "JFK Assassination Debate" section is all that exists (proof of which being they will start threads on any topic from Mockingbird to Who Stole My Pudding in this section)?

I have no doubt the majority of the complaints are against Americans, whatever the percentages and the sociological data might be; I'm sure I'm one who's been complained about. But I do recognize I'm only a guest in this house, and it's up to the owners to decide what they want to do with their house. It's mostly a question of how people behave as guests, and if they're behaving like idiots then they should be tossed out just as guests behaving like idiots would be tossed out of someone's home. I agree with the proposals of Greg Parker and Frank Aqbat: most of the problems stem from fights over photography, and maybe the best solution would be to have a "special (rubber) room" where the usual suspects could go and see how many people join them; and John and Andy having to shell out money for bandwidth because of those same fights and the innumerable postings of images is not something John and Andy should have to do. They're already providing the tavern; why should they have to keep footing the bill for the heaviest drinkers?

As an American who has traveled a bit, and lives in an international city, Los Angeles, with as large a percentage of immigrants as any city in the world, I feel I can comment on Andy's statements. He's right. Americans are extremely aggressive, among the most aggressive people in the world. Part of this is our "Ugly American" attitude....

Some have concluded this American aggressiveness is connected to our Puritan and Democratic heritage. We have no royalty. While people from other cultures are taught their lot in life from an early age, Americans are taught that they can become anything they want, and that they have to EARN their way into heaven. This combination spurs inventions, factories, music and murder. Americans are taught the world is theirs to mold. I suspect people from other countries have a different attitude.

While it's nice that Pat and other less parochial, more "worldly" Americans can concede the point about American aggressiveness, it's also true that one of the common complaints I've heard a few times about this forum is that there's a decidedly anti-American slant to most of what's posted. So it's no great surprise to see that it's mostly "bad-mannered" Americans who are the culprits in behavio(u)r: we may soon be the only ones left, since more self-respecting Americans wouldn't want to have much to do with hearing about all the evil the United States represents, and also wouldn't want much to do with other Americans who give Americans a bad name.

I subscribe to lots of outrageous conspiracy theories, one being that it would be in the interests of certain political groups -- many of them associated with the Republican Party -- to discredit "the research community" by having their toadies play-acting as (American) "radicals." One result of that would be more or less what we have here, where many "responsible" American members are not active because of all the bad-mouthing of the United States that goes on and because they may not want to be associated with others who are embarrassing as Americans. (But it's also true that the non-American academics for whom this forum was supposedly designed are distinctly absent much of the time, and hardly come near the "controversial" section....) I suppose another possibility would be for an international forum like this to keep only "bad" representatives of the US while driving out more "responsible" ones; then all the non-Americans can point and laugh at "the Americans."

This raises another question. There's a long-standing cliche' about the British having a "character trait" for hypocrisy. I don't believe it's a universal trait, but then again I don't easily believe that the British and their previous subjects in Canada and Australia and elsewhere have been strangers to the violence inherent in conquering frontiers and subjugating "the natives" -- just like Americans, but without the corresponding current superpower status that non-Americans have the luxury to get so upset about. It's indisputable that there is a "gun culture" in the United States; but it exists largely because of an amendment in the US Constitution that was once thought to be necessary for Americans to be able to defend themselves against both "natives" and Redcoats. (And so nothing can be done towards gun control in the US because every red-blooded American really believes it's only his hunting rifles and shotguns that are indispensable to the survival and the success of liberty.) And it was our one-time British overseers (now so benign) who made it seem necessary by ordering the confiscation of colonists' "home protection weapons" (on the same theory followed by every imperial power -- that controlling the access to weaponry by a hostile occupied population would somehow result in that population's acquiescence to being occupied).

So I blame the British. It was not the United States that came up with the Balfour Declaration, and it was not the United States that let the situation in Palestine develop into a civil war that continues to this day and is the prime cause of what people call "unrest" in the Middle East. It was not the United States that decided to carve up the remains of the Ottoman Empire, stuffing the Kurdish people into an amalgamation with Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs in something called Iraq; and it was not the United States that was responsible for the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Kashmir "problem." The simple fact of the matter is that most of the "world problems" the US has had to deal with for a half century has resulted from inheriting the "problems" left over by previous imperial powers, mostly the British. (In Vietnam it was the French.) But for the most part in this forum evil in the world was born around 1945, and everything's not only been downhill ever since but it's all been the fault of the United States....

Simplistic, of course; but blaming the British is every bit as legitimate and supportable by historical evidence as blaming the United States. Even more so, in my opinion, since the British ruled the world far longer than the United States has had the opportunity to do, and since there's some evidence the United States originally had no desire to rule the world but was instead acting in larger interests of trying to block attempts by totalitarian states to dominate all the people of the earth. Again, it's a luxury for non-Americans to be critical of the United States, however justified their criticisms are, both because they are in a weaker position and because they don't have to deal much with the responsibility. I do call that hypocrisy, just as many of the issues involved in (the origins of ) this thread may reveal a good deal of hypocrisy.

If a hypothetical member noticed a great many themes, arguments and ideas being put forth which he or she recognized as the themes, arguments and ideas commonly held and espoused by (for instance) the John Birch Society or by racists, then the hypothetical member's instinctive reaction might be to confront it directly and expose the thing. He or she might see no point in pretending to be "civil" and "play the game" by accepting at face-value the facades of people who themselves may be and seem to be pretending. Some have a lower threshold for living with dishonesty and hypocrisy than others.... But it may seem too aggressive (too "typically American") for the hypothetical member to try to point out what others are "on about," particularly if those being "attacked" have managed to finagle their way into the good graces of a forum administrator. And it doesn't help when the "higher-ups" display a good deal of selective criticism, double standards and preferential treatment. If I was intent on disrupting this forum I would have a real hard choice between whether I should be infinitely polite or relentlessly abusive, but neither option is exactly mutually exclusive of an overall strategy for promoting a particular agenda.

There's not much that can be done about hypocrisy or about promoting (hidden) agendas. But here are two proposals to deaI with the immediate problem that this thread is allegedly about:

1) All Americans should voluntarily cease and desist from activity in the forum. This would merely be an extension of the current pattern anyway, and then the membership and the administrators can draw their own conclusions about the Americans who remain.

2) All Americans should be banned from the forum, including the deletion of the membership of all the current ones. This would be the most effective option, in my opinion, because then the "bad apples" would have to find someplace else to go and other things to do, and it would be no great loss to the forum since so few of the "good apples" want much to do with it right now anyway.

Great post Daniel.

I'll just add that many Americans on this forum have acknowledged that they see America as hyper-aggressive, and even apologized for the behavior of other Americans. Whereas no Brit has apologized for the rudeness and hypocrisy so many perceive, and so many comment on, or even acknowledged it as part of their culture.

[Myra Bronstein]

How much collegiality is too much collegiality?

How many tender mercies were on display in Dealey Plaza that day?

If, as I have argued from podiums and soap boxes, we are at war with the killers of John Kennedy, then for what reasons other than the cynically tactical should we honor these people by treating them with civility?

Permit me to offer again what I've published in other media:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was the victim of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Further, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is as verifiable an historical truth as is the Holocaust; and anyone in a position to know this truth who, in support of ulterior political and/or cultural agendas, chooses not to do so is spiritually akin to the Holocaust deniers.

As far as the "how" of the assassination is concerned, polite debate is as absurd as it is counterproductive to the pursuit of greater truth. The "who" and "why" questions remain on the table.

Bugliosi is to be pilloried by us. His JFK assassination-related opinions are deserving of not a scintilla of respect and must be treated as enemy propaganda. We must deny him and his ilk the illusion of a level playing field in the eyes of history, for he and his masters are targeting the historical record.

All they want is for history to dignify their lies. And if we cannot prevent this, how will history judge us?

Great post Charles. I share your philosophy.

[John Simkin]

Ask the Brits. They should know 'cause they're still over there in the North being imperial, in spite of John's assurances that those days are behind England.

When did I say that. Have you not read any of my posts on Iraq?

[John Simkin]

Well since John raised the subject and now we're all sitting around the virtual campfire sharing our anecdotes--I've traveled extensively, including two trips to England. The only place I encountered systemic rudeness and haughtiness (aside from the Bahamas) was England. The worst experience I've ever had with a company was with British Airways. The only time I've ever been thrown out of a restaurant (because they didn't like the way my companion was sitting on the chair, and she did not have her shoes on the chair, nor did she argue with them) was in England. By contrast, the French were downright cuddly. Oh, and I worked for a British company for three years and the top five managers--all Brits (one Scottish) were the worst, most duplicitous unscrupulous, people I've ever worked with or for. And of course there is my experience on this forum...

I am sorry you have had some bad experiences of the British. I cannot do anything about the way you were treated in the restaurant. However, I am keen to sort out any problems with the forum. Could you explain about how the British have treated you so badly on this forum?

[John Simkin]

Personally, I take your posts with the great dollop of humour which I suspect you intend, and sincerely hope that you continue posting your thoughts, irrespective of whether you are right or wrong about this or that hypothesis in any given case. I do find it odd that those who claim to welcome fresh perspectives and new "outside the box" thoughts in this ancient case are unwilling to entertain just that when you present it. Important new discoveries will not be made by simply retracing the same old ground on the same old paths.

But what does Ashton Gray really believe? He seems to think that Scientology is somehow involved in these events. I wish he would clarify this point? Or is he just making fun of all of us?

[John Simkin]

The question that I have in mind, and that I have researched but do still not fully understand, pertains to the words "peers" or "peerage". In my country, the word "implies" a general similarity or familiarity. I feel that the more common British useage of "peerage" is most likely the more correct, but can be interpreted quite differently than the general American useage.

The word "peer" comes from the Latin "paria" which means "equal things, similar things". It is also linked to making judgements, for example, umpire.

In the UK we talk about "peer groups" (people of the same age).

I suspect the word "peerage" came out of the forming of the House of Lords in the 13th century. The aristocrats wanted the monarchy to share power with them. They wanted equality within their group. The House of Lords gave them that.

[Pat Speer]

My goal on the question of being right or wrong is to be right 51% of the time—and I still manage to disappoint myself as often as not. If each of us chasing these elusive right answers in a hail storm of maliciously supplied wrong answers can only manage to be right on the important points, I still hold out hope that we'll get somewhere.

Thank you for your interest, and for your fair-handed dealing with these issues.

Ashton

If you're wrong as often as you claim, why do you find it necessary to put down anyone who disagrees with you?

[Ashton Gray]

Personally, I take your posts with the great dollop of humour which I suspect you intend, and sincerely hope that you continue posting your thoughts, irrespective of whether you are right or wrong about this or that hypothesis in any given case. I do find it odd that those who claim to welcome fresh perspectives and new "outside the box" thoughts in this ancient case are unwilling to entertain just that when you present it. Important new discoveries will not be made by simply retracing the same old ground on the same old paths.

But what does Ashton Gray really believe?

That religious icons can, indeed, appear in pancakes. (Obligatory dollop of humor. Or, humour, if you prefer.)

He seems to think that Scientology is somehow involved in these events. I wish he would clarify this point?

That the CIA used three top-level Scientology OTs as the core of their long-running remote viewing program is inarguable. It is solidly documented in the Remote Viewing Timeline, which I have linked to in several articles at relevant places. (This is the timeline that MockingBirdpedia censored from their site, and forbade anyone even to link to after they had eradicated it, but it had been webbed at the link in this paragraph.)

That the top secret evolution and establishment of CIA's remote viewing program—using these highly-trained Scientology OTs—exactly paralleled the events of the so-called Pentagon Papers and Watergate hoaxes also is inarguable. The Remote Viewing Timeline lays out this bizarre synchronicity in some detail. I explored this further for you, specifically, and in thorough detail, on the first forum page of the topic you started in the Watergate forum called R. Spencer Oliver, after you had said my "proposed motivation" for the actors in Watergate made "no sense at all." I presented thoroughly documented data there in the form of a timeline, some of it with my own commentary (gratuitous humor at no extra charge).

After I invested a great deal of time in that response to you in that thread, you never responded at all for over a month, and when you did, you didn't respond to any of the facts at issue that I had posted, saying instead:

You have a strange notion that a timeline is a theory that is supported by the evidence. It is not. It is just a timeline. Your strategy is to provide a timeline of what appears to be two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology. The dates and details on your timeline might be completely accurate. However, it does not mean that just because these events are in the same timeline, that they are connected.

If you posted your theory about past events then I and other members might be interested in trying to rebut them...

On 17 December 2006, the same day you posted that, I answered you at considerable length in that thread, and you have not responded. As I said there, the facts speak for themselves, and I have no confusion whatsoever between a timeline and a "theory." I simply don't feel an obligation to post any theories that I might form at any moment on any set of data, particularly when data sets change as new data and relationships are found, and theories—in my use of them and research—have all the value and half-life of toothpicks.

So I'm still not sure what you want me to clarify. The facts speak for themselves. Anyone is free to formulate or propose or mull over any theory of their own construct from the facts. It should go without saying that any useful theory will embrace all relevant facts. My point to you in the referenced thread is that I found your dismissal of my work and observations on the Watergate affair extraordinarily disdainful, especially in light of the fact that your own proposed theories and observations so far have omitted even a mention, much less a careful consideration, of the prodigious body of data related to the CIA's top priority at all relevant times: its remote viewing program.

In fact, your latest position that I know of is stated above: "it does not mean that just because these events are in the same timeline, that they are connected."

And I'll say again here what I said to you in that thread: No one has made a claim that the events are connected only by virtue of being in the timeline. The events are connected by common CIA personnel, proximate or concommitant dates, and proximate geographical locations in many cases. So the situation is actually the inverse of your syllogism: because the incidents are connected, they are in the timeline.

Or is he just making fun of all of us?

No, John, I'm not making fun of anyone—until they start trying to make a toy of me. I think a few have found that that's not a very profitable course.

Meanwhile, I believe—and this is subjective, so may be off the mark—that most people can differentiate between the carefully researched facts I present, my offhanded humorous or sarcastic comments, and my sometimes heated verbal fencing with people who temporarily and mistakenly think condescension might work on me. I would go further and hope that they can differentiate between the facts and any "theories" I might be so bold as to put forward at any time based on those facts, because I consider theories to be ephemeral things that I will discard like a tissue the moment data changes.

Conversely, if you'd like to see an example of the kind of ridicule that has been tolerated in this forum directed at me, though, even on the subject you raise, see the first red quote in my sig below. That smarmy sarcastic smear is what Pat Speer—the "gentleman" you endorse—attempted to paint me with. I didn't see you raise an objection to his ridicule of this subject and of me. (I no longer will be wasting a moment of my time on anything he posts.)

If you want me further to "clarify"—in any way I'm able—anything about this subject and its relationship to Watergate (which also, apparently, from a little I've found, reaches back to 1963 and even earlier), create an environment where such things as CIA's proven involvement with it can be discussed civilly and respectfully.

Ashton

[Jack White]

I believe that Ashton Gray should be allowed to pursue any theories he chooses

regarding the motivation for the Watergate affair. I have never believed the

"official story" of Watergate, which I believe was part of its coverup. I believe

that it is even possible that Watergate was somehow related to the JFK affair,

since many of the players were the same. The true story is yet to be told.

So why make personal attacks on Mr. Gray for presenting his theory? Actually

I find his SCIENTOLOGY theory interesting.

In the early 1980s I received a long distance phone call from a man who

claimed to be an attorney for The Church of Scientology, which I had never

heard of. He said they were involved in a lawsuit, and needed an expert

witness regarding THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS OF LHO, and had learned

that I had testified about them to the HSCA. He asked lots of questions. He

said that I would be qualified as an EXPERT WITNESS to testify, and my

expenses would be paid to travel to (Nevada? or Utah?) to testify and I would

be paid a per diem of $200 for about a week. I told him I would be glad to tell

what I know about the photos. He refused to tell me what the lawsuit was

about. I never heard from him again and passed it off as an odd incident.

Counter Mr. Gray's research if it needs it. But don't attack the man for looking

into SCIENTOLOGY. We might learn something.

Jack

[Evan Marshall]

I believe that Ashton Gray should be allowed to pursue any theories he chooses

regarding the motivation for the Watergate affair. I have never believed the

"official story" of Watergate, which I believe was part of its coverup. I believe

that it is even possible that Watergate was somehow related to the JFK affair,

since many of the players were the same. The true story is yet to be told.

So why make personal attacks on Mr. Gray for presenting his theory? Actually

I find his SCIENTOLOGY theory interesting.

In the early 1980s I received a long distance phone call from a man who

claimed to be an attorney for The Church of Scientology, which I had never

heard of. He said they were involved in a lawsuit, and needed an expert

witness regarding THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS OF LHO, and had learned

that I had testified about them to the HSCA. He asked lots of questions. He

said that I would be qualified as an EXPERT WITNESS to testify, and my

expenses would be paid to travel to (Nevada? or Utah?) to testify and I would

be paid a per diem of $200 for about a week. I told him I would be glad to tell

what I know about the photos. He refused to tell me what the lawsuit was

about. I never heard from him again and passed it off as an odd incident.

Counter Mr. Gray's research if it needs it. But don't attack the man for looking

into SCIENTOLOGY. We might learn something.

Jack

it's been my experience that each country has its share of Turds. As far as the Lone Gunman crowd I believe anger and ridicule never perseuded anyone-do I think there was a conspirarcy-actually I think its obvious, but I prefer a more reasoned approach-My Grandma used to advise me never to argue with a fool because after the 1st 45 seconds, people will not be able to tell you apart.

When I was assigned to Detroit Homicide I began to realize that 99.99% of the population fail to grasp that there are Monsters roaming the earth in human form and they routinely commit unspeakable and unimaginable horrors-perhaps there are people who cannot deal with Govt behavior thats outside their comfort zone and the SBT and LGM are the result.

[Mark Wilson]

I'd like to add a 4th category that seemingly always gets out of hand and will test the true colors of any future moderator and that is any theory that attempts to debate Israeli or Mossad involvement.These discussions always turn into who's a racsist,bigot,or an anti semite.In the short time i've been a member here,i have to say,i've never been more disgusted than i was after witnessing the way Michael Piper Collins was treated when he offered to answer questions about his book in the Author section.He hasnt been back since and i dont blame him.But you see, the mission was accomplished,have zero debate about the contents of his book,Final Judgement...This scenerio with Collins is one i'm more familiar with because my main interest is the JFK assassination but these type of attacks are not limited to the JFK assassination.The ordeal and circumstance that led to Collins no longer participating on this forum is ,imo, a black mark on open debate.

Just for the record Collins Piper left of his own free will unable apparently to cope with the rigour of open debate.

Just for the record,i happen to think the Piper/Final Judgement topic in the history book section epitomizes many aspects of poor behaviour.Ultimately, the name callers won out, no Piper no debate....you say open debate ,i say open attack....

We are experiencing parallel realities. Collins Piper was belligerent and hostile and hyper-defensive the second he joined the thread you mentioned. He started arguing with himself, basically. After a few salvos from him in the general direction of everyone on the planet, esp those on the forum, a few members got disgusted and finally swatted back at him.

He came into the thread with a major attitude, anticipating arguments, and it became his self-fulfilling prophesy. I never communicated with him, and I was planning to read his book until I read that thread. No way now I'd believe anything that guy writes.

He was the abusive one, not the forum members.

Hello Myra.Congrats on your recent moderatorship appointment,as well as the others...As to your comments about Piper..I agree he came to the forum very defensive,but if you were familiar with the build up of Piper first participating you would know that before he ever responded,posted or was possibly even a member there was a discussion/debate that in a nut shell asked, "should an anti semite be a member of this forum?".He was attacked before he ever posted on the forum.Holocaust denier,David Duke, and anti semite were some of the terms that were thrown around,again before he ever posted a word on the Education Forum...This is no doubt an interesting thread,an endorsement from our new moderator of how Len Colby and Tim Gratz treat people that disagree with their agendas while others point out all the shortcomings of Americans.

[Pat Speer]

Counter Mr. Gray's research if it needs it. But don't attack the man for looking

into SCIENTOLOGY. We might learn something.

Jack

Living in La La land, and having been targeted for recruitment more than once in my early life, I know a bit more about the Church of Scientology than most. Having lived with a woman whose childhood was destroyed when her father became a convert, and having known an educably retarded woman who went bankrupt from paying for "audits," I also have a better understanding of the damage it can bring. That said, I am open-minded about remote viewing.

Did anyone notice? In Ashton's last post he admitted that what he presents as my "official theory of Watergate" in his tag line, is, in fact, my paraphrasing of his theory. And yet he calls me a disinformation agent

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Counter Mr. Gray's research if it needs it. But don't attack the man for looking

into SCIENTOLOGY. We might learn something.

Jack

Living in La La land, and having been targeted for recruitment more than once in my early life, I know a bit more about the Church of Scientology than most. Having lived with a woman whose childhood was destroyed when her father became a convert, and having known an educably retarded woman who went bankrupt from paying for "audits," I also have a better understanding of the damage it can bring. That said, I am open-minded about remote viewing.

Did anyone notice? In Ashton's last post he admitted that what he presents as my "official theory of Watergate" in his tag line, is, in fact, my paraphrasing of his theory. And yet he calls me a disinformation agent

Although I have no specific problems with certain aspects of the Scientology movement, I am nevertheless always leary of anyone who would follow the "truth" as preached by those such as L. Ron Hubbard; Charles Manson; Jim Jones; Ervil LeBaron; etc.

But then again, I believe in a "Lone Assassin", so what could I know???????????

(I do know that Z312/313 was the Second Shot though)!

[Myra Bronstein]

I'd like to add a 4th category that seemingly always gets out of hand and will test the true colors of any future moderator and that is any theory that attempts to debate Israeli or Mossad involvement.These discussions always turn into who's a racsist,bigot,or an anti semite.In the short time i've been a member here,i have to say,i've never been more disgusted than i was after witnessing the way Michael Piper Collins was treated when he offered to answer questions about his book in the Author section.He hasnt been back since and i dont blame him.But you see, the mission was accomplished,have zero debate about the contents of his book,Final Judgement...This scenerio with Collins is one i'm more familiar with because my main interest is the JFK assassination but these type of attacks are not limited to the JFK assassination.The ordeal and circumstance that led to Collins no longer participating on this forum is ,imo, a black mark on open debate.

Just for the record Collins Piper left of his own free will unable apparently to cope with the rigour of open debate.

Just for the record,i happen to think the Piper/Final Judgement topic in the history book section epitomizes many aspects of poor behaviour.Ultimately, the name callers won out, no Piper no debate....you say open debate ,i say open attack....

We are experiencing parallel realities. Collins Piper was belligerent and hostile and hyper-defensive the second he joined the thread you mentioned. He started arguing with himself, basically. After a few salvos from him in the general direction of everyone on the planet, esp those on the forum, a few members got disgusted and finally swatted back at him.

He came into the thread with a major attitude, anticipating arguments, and it became his self-fulfilling prophesy. I never communicated with him, and I was planning to read his book until I read that thread. No way now I'd believe anything that guy writes.

He was the abusive one, not the forum members.

Hello Myra.Congrats on your recent moderatorship appointment,as well as the others...As to your comments about Piper..I agree he came to the forum very defensive,but if you were familiar with the build up of Piper first participating you would know that before he ever responded,posted or was possibly even a member there was a discussion/debate that in a nut shell asked, "should an anti semite be a member of this forum?".He was attacked before he ever posted on the forum.Holocaust denier,David Duke, and anti semite were some of the terms that were thrown around,again before he ever posted a word on the Education Forum...This is no doubt an interesting thread,an endorsement from our new moderator of how Len Colby and Tim Gratz treat people that disagree with their agendas while others point out all the shortcomings of Americans.

This proves my parallel reality theory.

First, Mark, you attributed quotes to me that aren't mine. That whole "4th category" blurb was from someone else's post.

Second, I did not get--or seek--a moderator appointment. Although the very idea of me being a moderator here is pretty friggin' entertaining.

Third, and finally, I read all back posts between Piper et al. And I think Piper discredited himself.

'Kay?

Myra

[Ashton Gray]

Although I have no specific problems with certain aspects of the Scientology movement, I am nevertheless always leary of anyone who would follow the "truth" as preached by those such as L. Ron Hubbard

Then there's another fine reason for you to be leary of CIA: they built their remote viewing program on it, and ran it for over twenty-five years in supreme secrecy—using your tax dollars. Or hadn't you thought of that part?

The feds giveth, and the feds taketh away.

De Oppresso Liber. Dontcha' know.

Ashton Gray