1. ©November 28, 2023 (10:49p),

    Vetting Your Elected Liars

    December 2, 2023 at 4:10 AM

    Mr. White, I agree with your article ["Stupid Kill Money"] until your last statement - "This time I have a suggestion: For starters, call your Congress Critter and give it a piece of your mind."

    Those are precisely the people who got us in this mess in the first place, so why call them? They do will nothing and will change nothing, least of all their minds, as small and narrow as they are. You probably won't get past multiple gate-keepers because your representative is "too busy" to speak to you.

    But the problem isn't entirely those lying hypocritical, corrupt people who call themselves "representatives." It is the people - voters - who put them in power because they are offered some shiny object - always FREE from government. Therefore, the voters are just as corrupt as the "representatives." One offers a thing - a bribe to buy votes -, the other sells himself for the thing with with his vote. Similar to transacting with streetwalkers.

    Politicians and bureaucrats violate their Oath of Office. It is my opinion that an oath of office is not enough; in ADDITION we need an employment contract with each of them - I call them political job applicants - making them liable and responsible for the outcome of their behavior. At EVERY ELECTION they are applying to the voters to hire them no matter how long they've been in Congress. Just like any job-seeker with a large corporation they need to be thoroughly background checked; education, police record including misdemeanors, morality, voting record if already seated, financial background, before being hired. We don't hire politicians so they can become multi-millionaires at our expense while ruling over us.

    Tony

    I almost completely agree with your comment, Tony.

    But my main motto is "An Unchallenged Lie Becomes An Unquestioned Truth," so these elected liars must be continually challenged or else, well, you-know.

    You're also almost completely right that they rarely pay attention to comments from we their employers.

    However, they all have at least one factotum that tallys the comments and may record a particularly well formed blast - - - and at least the tally gets passed on to the Critter.

    And there are, of course, a few honest Critters, poor things.

    But there's another layer of method to my madness: We have been conditioned, especially by approximately 13 years of government designed Prussian-form schooling -- with it's ""hidden curriculum" -- to accept one-way communication, that is, take orders without objection. This is against human nature.

    What better way to break the ice than to use the Critters for "talk back" practice?

    And notice I did write, "For starters" - - -

    lrw 

      < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\ARTICLES.NEW\STUPIDKI.LL>

    Posted by
    Labels: Congress Critters Elected Liars Stupid Kill Money Unchallenged lies
    0

    Add a comment

  2. Psychologist Gregory Bateson reports that after complete frustration trying to explain a semantic nicety to his class, he once overheard one of his students saying "Bateson knows something but he's not telling." I suspect that Frederick Mann may feel a frustration similar to Bateson's.

    v.960916

    Does government, or for that matter, anything, exist as we perceive it?

    I believe the following should almost completely clear-up the so-called "De Rivas Hallucination."

    Let's try a few "thought experiments," three to be exact.

    1ST THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

    Suppose that unknown to you, your certifiably insane neighbor hallucinates a six foot high concrete block wall dividing YOUR yard down the middle. He notices there is no such wall and realizes he must remedy the situation. You come home that night after work to find such a wall has been built. Mystified but a bit annoyed by the wall, -- your hallucination is that your yard DOESN'T have such a wall -- you tear it down. Your neighbor, noticing the wall is gone, builds it again the next day. You find the new wall and tear IT down too. ---- Etc. Your neighbor, rich and getting frustrated, hires a local contractor to build the wall and to rebuild it everytime it gets torn down. You're keeping up with the contractor, tearing the wall down every time he builds it, but finally your neighbor, really annoyed now, hires armed guards to protect the wall from your destructive, hooligan attacks.

    QUESTION #1: What's your BIGGEST problem? Is it the actual physical walls your neighbor builds or has built? Is it the contractor or armed guards he hires? --- Or is it the hallucination, the IDEA, the mental construction, in your neighbor's mind that the wall exists or SHOULD exist, and which he passes on (by the use of money) to the contractor and guards? (Or is the problem -- possibly -- the hallucination or idea in YOUR mind that it SHOULDN'T exist?)

    QUESTION #2: Can you handle the problem by ignoring the wall, pretending it doesn't exist, and just walking THROUGH it -- or ignoring the copper-jacketed lead bullets the armed guards shoot you with while you're tearing the wall down? Probably not. While the wall may be an affront to your sensibilities, can you still AVOID the wall by just peacefully walking around it or avoiding your backyard, or at least the wall, completely, etc.? If you now understand the "De Rivas Hallucination," you probably can. If your neighbor decides to build OTHER walls, however, at some point you might have to take more direct action.

    2ND THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

    Suppose your neighbor only _imagines_ there is a wall through the middle of your back yard and when he sees you apparently walking through it, hires the armed guards to shoot you if you try that trick again.

    QUESTION #1: Is the situation you face substantially different from the previous one where the wall actually exists?

    QUESTION #2: Since there isn't any actual wall in the physical world, where does the problem exist?

    QUESTION #3: If you reach the point where you believe you must "do something" about the walls, imaginary or not, are you more likely to meet with success by attacking physical walls, or by trying to change your neighbor's mind ----- or, perhaps, by some other means?

    Consider the following:
    We know that the earth is round. We know there are people on it. We know that they are all like us. But when you fly around it time and time again ---90 minutes to get around the whole earth---again and again and again, it comes in a different way. It doesn't come in through the head. It comes in through the heart, in through the gut. When you come down from that experience, you've crossed thousands and thousands of borders and boundaries that are artificially created. They work nice on maps. You paint them orange and blue and green. But that's not what it is when viewed from space. You don't even see those boundaries and borders. We created them, guys, and it's up to us to do something about it. I'd suggest that this perspecitve is one that might help a little bit in taking responsibility for this planet as a whole and for all the life on it. That's what comes through to you when you're up there in space, when you're flying around this beautiful planet. -from "On Space," by Rusty Schweickart, Transcript of the First Annual Windstar Choices for the Future Symposium, Snowmass, Colorado, June 1986, excerpted from The Magic of Conflict by Thomas F. Crum, pg. 85
    3RD THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

    Imagine "The Government." What does it look like? How much does it weigh? What color is it? Where is it right now? Can you pick it up? What would happen if you shot it repeatedly with an automatic weapon?

    QUESTION #1: Is "The Government" different from the imaginary wall running through your back yard? If so, how?

    Finally, to see just how far this can all be carried, consider the following:
    "Our raw material consisted merely of events; but when we find that we can build out of it something which, as measured, will seem to be never created or destroyed, it is not surprising that we should come to believe in "bodies." These are really mere mathematical constructions out of events, but owing to their permanence they are practically important and our senses (which were presumably developed by biological needs) are adapted for noticing them, rather than the crude continuum of events which is theoretically more fundamental. -Bertrand Russell, "ABC of Relativity," pg. 117
    Health, happiness & long life, 
    L. Reichard White

    * * - PERMISSION TO REPOST GRANTED. REPOSTING ENCOURAGED! - * *



    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  3. Where's the correlation between CO2 and warming?


    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  4. Hi Munch!

    I'm sorry to tell you, but you have it backwards. A middle class is natural - - - until you get a government involved. The government is used by the influential to protect themselves from competiton, which stunts and/or destroys the evolution of the middle class. Here's early evidence - - -
    'Up to and during the course of the fifteenth century the towns were the sole centers of commerce and industry to such an extent that none of it was allowed to escape into the open country' (Pirenne, _Economic and Social History_, p.169). 'The struggle against rural trading and against rural handicrafts lasted at least seven or eight hundred years' (Heckscher, _Mercantilism_, 1935, Vol. I, p. 129). '*The severity of these measures increased with the growth of 'democratic government*' . . . . 'All through the fourteenth century regular armed expeditions were sent out against all the villages in the neighborhood and looms or fulling-vats [in which cloth was dyed] were broken or carried away.' (Pirenne, _op.cit_., p. 211)." -Karl Polanyi, _The Great Transformation_. (Boston: Beacon Press 1957), p. 277
    Things haven't changed.

    Except that as the government-business axis evolved into what is now touted as "public-private enterprise" -- or "lemon capitalism" by some progressives (AND including The MilitaryIndustrialCongressional complex) -- government now takes from everyone, especially the poor. Remember, FICA, which finances about 33% of Uncle Scam, is highly regressive. Thus governments operate as reverse Robin Hoods, taking from nearly everyone (except the big corporations) and giving to the rich and politically influential, those who can afford lobbyists and/or huge campaign contributions.

    So, what destroys the middle class isn't the rich directly, it's a 50% tax burden -- and government rules, regulations, orders and controls that handicap and/or crush the little guy trying to compete with the big clunky guys.

    Health, happiness, & long life, 
    Rick

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\ECON\FREETRAD>
    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  5. From: "bob" 
    Subject: Re: [politics] The Notion of Government 
    Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005     

    P.P.S. SOMEBODY please try to defend the notion of "government" - - - else I'm going to start believing I'm right!! 

    Rick, 

    To have a functioning society, I believe the people have to get together and agree on rules of conduct. (Like, prohibiting force) And rules are meaningless without some impartial group elected or assigned to enforcement. And some judge or jury forum for settling disputes peacefully - is a must. And to survive through the ages, some pre-arranged method for repelling foreign attacks or invasion. Official diplomacy of some kind needs to be in place to help avoid armed conflict. 
    ------------------------ 
    Humans are the only species that attempt to level a playing field. It's not natural. Like green lawns in the desert, if you see good one, you can be sure people installed it and regularly maintain it. 

    Cheers, 
    Bob     

    PS My list of what governments shouldn't do is almost as long as yours. 

    Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 
    From: "L. Reichard White" 
    Subject: Re: [politics] The Notion of Government.     

    Hi Bob! 
    "Maybe we could invent a group of institutions to do only those things--"
    Not a bad idea! 

    The secret for such a group of alternative institutions to government-provided services is what I call "advance accountability." That is, the organization providing the services must know at all times that you may withdraw financial support if they don't provide acceptable products or services at reasonable prices. Thus you wouldn't find private protection services trying to stop folks from smoking or selling marijuhana, etc. or trying to enforce other rules antithetical to a free people. Just check out Purelator, Wackenhut, etc. if you don't believe me. 

    By the way, just as volunteer fire departments will often work gratis for a fire victim that hasn't subscribed, there would be equivalent outreach with free-market protection. 

    In fact, free-market alternatives to most of those corrupt institutions in u.S society -- the police and the courts for example -- that we assume must be provided by government - - - and thus paid for with extorted money (A.K.A. "taxes") - - - were thoroughly explored by triple PhD. and libertarian David Friedman, Nobel Laureat Milton's son. (Milton admits David is smarter.) 

    I didn't believe it either till TIGER BJ (Hans, Merilyn, etc.) went to Moscow and unbeknownst to us, we were working for a Russian "roof" (A.K.A. "mafia) in 1998, just after the ruble melt-down. Turns out "roofs" operate just as D. Friedman hypothesized private protection services would - - and they provided impressive protection at reasonable (competitive) prices. In the person of an Aussie Merilyn met in the Mirage poker room, they put up the BR and we split the win. We didn't know the Aussie represented a Mafia. 

    In the course of events, we got raided by them -- they thought we had ripped them off for their equivalent of a cool million or so. They just didn't understand fluctuations or standard deviation. Despite that and a few moments contemplating what the bottom of the Moscow River might be like in late November, I've been raided by U.S. Customs, and I would prefer a "roof" raid any day. Interesting story? Eventually it will come out in the book, "Six Deck Russian Roulette." Look for it in about a year and a half in your closest Barns and Noble. If I stop spending all this time hanging out with you folks - - - 

    Health, happiness & long life, 
    Rick     

    P.S. You can check out David Friedman's notions -- his own presentation -- here: David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, Chapter 29. 

    I was skeptical too, till I stumbled into the "roof" and discovered that they operated just as Friedman suggested. For example, I asked if they got in shoot-outs with rival "roofs." My bodyguard Serge (ex-KGB I discovered later) looked at me as if I were nuts and explained there was no future in such a job and if he had to shoot it out, he'd get a job digging ditches or something. They arbitrate, something they told me they hate almost as much as a shoot out. 

    I asked a LOT of questions. It was almost as if Friedman had a crystal ball. SO the main argument against such a situation was that Friedman was only theoretical. Once I had lived the reality, it was no longer theoretical. And I doubt the "roof" had studied Friedman to come up with their operations manual. Particularly given that to them, we were under suspicion of ripping them off for a million or so, the worst thing they suggested - - - which was over-ruled as barbaric - - - was a body search. 

    Heck, I've gotten that from customs for essentially no reason. 

    P.P.S. Bet you assume u.S cops have a duty to protect you. Not so. On June 27th, in /Castle Rock v. Gonzales/, the Supreme Court found the police to have no Constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court found (/South v. Maryland/) that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (/Bowers v. DeVito/), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, ?...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. 

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  6. In Defense of Walking Through Walls 

    ©March 17, 2017 (19:51p),


    Because of Major General "Bert" Stubblebine's gonzo credentials, folks who support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory don't like him very much. It's his take on the 9/11 Pentagon attack. THIS take: 



    The folks who want everyone to believe the official story like to bring up a scene from Jon Ronson's seriously entertaining flick, The Men Who Stare at Goats 


    Looks bad for Maj. General Stubblebine doesn't it? It seems that's him trying to run through that wall! 

     Here's how one proponent of the Official Conspiracy Theory casts him and the hypothesis you might be able to walk through walls -- without using a door, that is - - -
    Mr. X: "Scientists hypothesize when experimental data doesn't easilly fit into established facts. They don't go around making wacky assumptions out of thin air, as Gen. Stubblebine did. That is reserved for 3 AM bullshit sessions."
    L. Reichard White: And here I thought you understood science, there Mr. X. Nice exposition though. 

     Indeed, scientists "hypothesize when experimental data doesn't easilly fit into established facts" but that's not the only time. How do they decide what experiments to do to generate that experimental data? 

     That decision of what experiments to perform is where the exciting part of science begins -- and, as Sir Karl Popper points out, it starts from the first and under appreciated decision of what to observe. Which often originates in "3 AM bullshit sessions." 

     That's also where Nobel Prizes are likely to originate rather than from more mundane science. 

     So scientists "making wacky assumptions out of thin air, as Gen. Stubblebine did" -- they do it all the time. Then they test them.  As Gen. Stubblebine did. 

    Einstein for example with the nature of light. That was finally verified by Eddington's famous experiment, despite universal skepticism -- and asserted "wackiness." How could light WAVES possibly travel through a vacuum after all? Virtually everyone knew and accepted the then current "scientific" fad, namely the existence of the "luminiferous ether" through which light traveled. 

     But in Major Gen. Stubblebine's case, apparently you missed the quite mundane basis of a quite logical if edgy hypothesis. It's directly based on an understanding of basic physical science that even you must be aware of. Particularly the Atomic Theory of Matter. Like this from science writer Bill Bryson - - - 
    "When two objects come together in the real world -- billiard balls are most often used for illustration -- they don't actually strike each other: "Rather," as Timothy Ferris explains, "the negataively charged fields of the two balls repel each other ... Were it not for their electrical charges they could, like galaxies, pass right through each other unscathed." --Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, pg. 141
    And perhaps you're also aware of the famous double-slit experiments where merely observing electrons passing through the slits changes their behavior. 

     NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] itself did some ground-breaking work on an equally mysterious and related phenom, "quantum entanglement." Which should make folks wonder: If they can do such really good work, why does NIST hide those 74,777 key 9/11 Building 7 collapse files so other researchers can't check them for logic, rigor, mistakes, and fibs etc.? 

     So, given The Atomic Theory of Matter and the double-slit anomaly, compared to Einstein's "wacky notion" that light waves could pass through a vacuum -- not to mention E=mc² -- it would only take a rather mundane 3 AM bull session to connect the double-slit experiment -- where the mere act of observation affects what electrons do in the real world -- with billiard balls -- which, "were it not for their electrical charges ... Could pass right through each other unscathed" -- and come up with the hypothesis that it MIGHT be possible to "walk through walls." 

     Now test it as Maj. General Stubblebine did. 

    I expect some readers -- mostly those with limited imaginations, a misunderstanding of science, and especially 9/ll related cognitive disonance -- will be imitating comedian Tim Allen's famous monkey noises about now. 

     Now the best you could have hoped for Mr X, was to prove that one extremely solid so-called "truther," who deflates the Original Conspiracy Myth which is why you don't like him -- namely Major Gen, Stubblebine, a West Point grad with a Masters in Chemical Engineering from Columbia and a 32 year distinguished career in the U.S. military -- including redesigning INSCOM and a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame -- had one wacky idea. 

     Except it wasn't wacky.  And wacky or not, it's not relevant to his skills. 

    And it wasn't Maj. General Stubblebine who reportedly tried to walk through a wall either. It was another officer under him who was acting on his own initiative. And apparently the interview which enshrined that case of mis-appropriated identity may have been designed to discredit Stubblebine. 

     So, one way or another, attacking Maj. Gen. Stubblebine on the basis of this parapsychology work has no relevance to his extreme experience and expertise at interpreting photographic evidence.  Which leaves the 9/11 official defenders with a pretty serious problem claiming it was an airliner that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.  

    On the other hand, BRAVO! If you'd succeeded, you would have authored a strong candidate for the nit-pick hall of fame. 

     Unfortunately you failed. However in the attempt, you have revealed that you entertain the absurd notion that if someone has one wacky idea all their ideas are wacky. 

     That's silly. In fact, ludicrous, and if you apply that wacky standard to yourself, logically all thoughts and ideas you've ever had -- especially the ones above -- are all clearly wacky and should be totally disregarded. 

     I can live with that. 

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>

    P.S. The CIA and DOD carry on the research begun by Maj. Gen. Stubblebine to this day - - - 


    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  7. This letter is RE: The Strangest Fires Ever Told, by yours truly.

    Hi folks!
    "i'm sure you must have looked at the rebuttal of conspiracy theories about building 7. they seemed to have a reasonable explanation for that. By the way I seem to recollect that the trade centres used the outside steel cladding to support the building and that is why it collapsed. Not sound building practices." --John
    Keep in mind, the official version of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory so the question is which one is less believable.

    As far as "rebuttal of conspiracy theories about building 7," no one denies the building could be brought down with explosives. The only critique of demolition that I've seen is that it would be difficult to "wire" the buildings without being detected. That's a paper tiger at best. Ask me.

    And it would have to have been done prior to 9/11. Which is why no one wants to take a closer look.

    On the other hand, as far as the official conspiracy theory, I haven't seen any convincing defense of the quite frankly unbelievable NIST "most probable initiation sequence" hypothesis which, they assert, began with the collapse of Column 79.

    And remember, an hypothesis isn't proof, it requires proof.

    Let's see what proof they can muster - - -

    In fact, I instigated a whole herd of "debunkers" to find even one explicit endorsement of NIST's Column 79 conjecture starting in May, 2016. They're motivated folks and so far (October 1, 2016) they've completely failed in that quest.

    On the other hand, just lightly perusing the literature asserted to support NIST, I stumbled on these:
    "The Council [on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat -- CTBUH] does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79." --CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
    "Arup's review of NIST's findings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse." --ARUP Associates, an independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists
    And this general critique of NIST's 9/11 work:
    "I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable..." --NIST's former Fire Science Division head, Dr. James Quintiere
    Chief NIST investigator Sunder tried to explain it during a NIST Tech Briefing like this: "...the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures." In that report you find out that those "lower temperatures" were a paltry 400C.

    This completely ignores that steel-framed buildings have been designed to resist high-temperature thermal expansion for over 100 years. With virtually 100% no 9/11 type complete progressive collapses. And in fact, with one exception in Mexico from an 8.2 magnitude earthquake, no such collapses from any cause or combination of causes.

    And it was explaining the progressive collapse, not how it started, that was the challenge. And, offering no explanation, NIST shrugs that off.

    And they only came up with this Column 79 turkey after a three-year plus delay -- using non-validated computer simulations -- and hiding 74,777 (~80%) of the simulation files, thus making replication of their work impossible.

    So to sum up Building 7: Completely ignoring the demolition collapse signature, we have a poorly supported hypothesis, based on non-validated computer simulations, delayed for three years, unable to show how the actual collapse occurred, and hiding the files that would enable replication of it's work. And we have no specific support but specific disagreement from its own community on its main (Column 79) conclusion.

    Why not apply Occam's Razor and keep it simple. What's this look like to you?



    So, as to which conspiracy theory is less believable, well, that's for you to decide.

    Health, happiness, & long life,
    Rick

    P.S. For the BIG picture, see The Strangest Fires Ever Told, by yours truly.

    As far as the Towers practicing unsafe construction - - -
    With all of its structural redundancies, "the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures," [Robert] McNamara [president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia] said, adding that "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." His statement is bolstered by the fact that the support structures of both twin towers withstood the initial hits of the two kamikaze airliners despite the breaching of many levels of framing. --When the Twin Towers Fell - Scientific American
    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\ARTICLES.NEW\WHYFIRE>
    Posted by
    Labels: 9/11 911 911 myth conspiracy conspiracy theory controlled demolition debunk false flag WTC Building 7
    0

    Add a comment

  8. Re: Where "Liberal" and "Conservative" REALLY Come From
    It makes me think some of the stuff I've heard before in a college anthropology course ...redistributive feasting which involves big parties thrown by tribal leaders engaged in popularity contests with each other. ...that sounds a lot like what goes on in Congress ...Could the consequences of the bourgeoning national debt be our version of the wasteful behavior of tribal chieftains who brought the society on Easter Island to ruin? --Jeff F.
    Hi Jeff F!

    Hadn't considered the national debt that way, but add that today the cost of those popularity-buying "feasts" is passed on to the kids, grand kids and the yet unborn, and the analogy is nearly perfect.

    And there you have the basis of intergenerational warfare. Which is happening in nearly every developed "nation" -- and some not so developed ones as well.

    Also, our politically egalitarian small-group ancestors were quite aware of hierarchically inclined folks' tendencies to parlay almost anything -- including hunting etc. skills -- into positions of political power. And they had ways to handle those tendencies. It was almost certainly instinctive and genetic.

    In that regard, you might find this interesting:
    Hierarchy and Leadership? Not in MY Group You Don't!
    When groups got larger than, say, Dunbar's number, folks couldn't keep track of the power junkies very well. Once they get out of control, eventually what happened on Easter Island -- and to the socialist (communist) societies seems to happen to pretty much all societies. Like this - - -
    What Went Wrong With The Worldwide Socialist Revolutions - LewRockwell
    Thanks again for your interest, feedback, and insights!

    Health, happiness & long life,
    L. 

      < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLURBS\BLURBS01.WP6>
    Posted by
    Labels: Easter Island Intergenerational warfare national debt politics socialist revolutions THC03
    0

    Add a comment

  9. Not to excuse governments of any kind, but under Gaddafi, Libya was one of the wealthiest and most progressive populations in the area, the other notable one being Iraq under Saddam. He was regarded by most of the population as "The Hero of The Revolution." 

    Gaddafi tried to dissolve the Libyan government at one point and go back to "tribal." Those invested in that institution simply refused to dissolve. 

    Probably his biggest crime was to actively promote gold backed trade. Which is probably what got Hitlery, the Republicans, et.al. and their Goldman-Sachs etc, cohorts out for his blood -- and got Uncle Sam to fund rag-tag fringe government-wannabes -- and Uncle's war machine -- to send the men, women, and children of Libya back to the stone age.
    Posted by
    Labels: banksters Gadaffi gold gold standard Hillery Hitlery Libya Republicans war crimes
    0

    Add a comment

  10.  
    There are two questions at the top of the [Pearl Harbor] foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war" directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan's military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short....
    The latter question was answered in the affirmative on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. ...Congress was specific in its finding against the 1941 White House: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence pipeline that located Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. ...these congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of 59 years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short.
    But one important question remains: Does the blame for the Pearl Harbor disaster revert to President Roosevelt? --December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning: Robert B. Stinnett, Newsroom: The Independent Institute
    That question was answered when Mr. Stinnett's persistent FOIA requests finally obtained the key documents, which, as he puts it, had been "Immediately after December 7, 1941, ...locked in U.S. Navy vaults away from the prying eyes of congressional investigators, historians, and authors."

    In getting these key documents, Mr. Stennett got slightly lucky: They had been transferred from the Navy to the National Archives which hadn't recognized the, ah, "sensitivity" of the material yet. His final FOIA went to the The National Archives.

    How long does it take to expose a major conspiracy? To uncover the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, it took luck and approximately 59 years of persistent effort. With Uncle Sam kicking and screaming all the way.

    < C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\LSLITTLE>
    Posted by
    Labels: 9/11 CAG: CT: conspiracy conspiracy theory FDR McCollum Pearl Harbor Stinnett
    0

    Add a comment

Loading