Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

A secure line?

You've got to be kidding me, Morambar!

Secure?

That's a laugh!

There's probably a satellite devoted to you right now, that is synched in to a predator drone, and well, you know how that scenario goes!

And then, up here where I am, in the GULAG ARCHIPELAGO of America, there are always the secure mental facilities beckoning the unwary and the wary, both, and the "modern state" up here has its bogus doctors lined up and waiting to commit YOU, yes, you, as an enemy of the state, for the good of the "modern state"!

Bullets are just too expensive anymore, and well, the perverts can't have as much fun with dead people as they can with the live ones, as the abu Ghraib wierdos working for "Uncle Sam" proved to all the candid, watching world, and so, now we have the GULAGS for them to have their sport in, when they are not getting their kicks at abu Ghraib.

Long live the "modern state"!

And down with people!

After all, what good are they for anything?

[Livyjr]

Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it.

But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion, and empathy.

- Dean Koontz

[jeffmoskin]

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did...

but you CAN hold him responsible for what HE did - - - unsigning Clinton's Executive order to join the International Criminal Court - - - which prevents the prosecution of the claims of the two Holocaust survivors in that venue after the US court rejected them.

[Livyjr]

.... but you CAN hold him responsible for what HE did ...

Isn't that now "un-American", jeffmoskin, holding our leaders responsible for anything at all?

Because then, of course, the "PEOPLE" themselves would have to start acting in a responsible manner as well, and where would that lead us to?

Integrity?

That's no fun!

[Abu Beacon]

but you CAN hold him responsible for what HE did - - - unsigning Clinton's Executive order to join the International Criminal Court - - - which prevents the prosecution of the claims of the two Holocaust survivors in that venue after the US court rejected them.

Tim Russer's program starts in a few minutes. I try to watch that when I can, so I have just a moment now for one comment on the International Criminal Court.

If we had joined it, where would all of the fine upstanding officers who were in any way connected with Abu Ghraib be now?

Cleared of any responsibility just like this latest military court cleared them?

Sure. It was all the fault of the enlisted men.

I watched a program called Dr. Phil for a while last year. It was too soap opera like for me so I stopped watching it. However he used one statement many times that I like and agree with which is ---

" People that have nothing to hide, hide nothing. "

Do you agree with that, Mr. President?

A.B.

[jeffmoskin]

Snoopy ties it together again, thanks.  Should I post my JFK/RFK/MLK theory here, so they can get two patriots with one shot? 

John Foster Dulles had a brother, name of Allan.  Used to run this thing called the Central Intelligence Agency, which was literally built on the Naval OSS.  During WWII the OSS had a member who would himself later rise to prominence, largely on the basis of his wartime service, fella named Nixon.  In between the war and Nixons inauguration as Vice President several things happened:  John Foster Dulles became Secy. of State, the health of General Eisenhower deteriorated rapidly (but not his affection for Kay Summersby,) and Operation Paper Clip transported a number of Nazi war criminals to the US with full pardon because we couldn't risk the Russians getting them (after all, if it wasn't for the Germans the Japanese probably beat us to the bomb and the world is a VERY different place.) 

So the US has this ultra-secret, brand new intelligence agency developed from Naval Intelligence.  In 1952 one of their former members begins an eight year reign of the country while the nominal leader plays bridge and golf, runs around on Mamie with Kay, and has two heart attacks and a stroke, during all of which time, guess who's making tuff decisions like whether we should intervene in Vietnam?  Everythings going along swimmingly; who knows more about running a shadow government than the Nazis? 

Then something unfortunate happens.  The Vice President loses his bid to become President outright by a little over a hundred thousand votes.  A few years later, a young man who would one day become President shakes the hand of the victor on the day he is shot, despite being a teen-age resident of a city 200 miles away, leading us to at least consider the possibility he was accompanied by a parent, possibly his father, a CIA agent.  A commission is quickly convened to get to the bottom of the event, whose members include a young and unremarkable Congressman from Michigan named Ford and the director of the CIA, a fella named Dulles.  They conclude there was no conspiracy, just a lone nutter.

Meanwhile the body count mounts in Southeast Asia, on both sides, and the man we wouldn't have to kick around anymore comes in to save the day on a platform of ending the war (a platform on which he campaigned TWICE.)  All is going well, and then something unfortunate happens.  The President is so crushed by a war the Intelligence community won't let him end, and the consequences of that war for the Great Society that was to be phase two of the New Deal, that he announces he will not run, nor even accept the nomination if it is thrust upon him.  Suddenly, the young Senator from New York decides that maybe he wants to be President after all. As the popular brother of the martyred former President, a champion of blacks, latinos, and all the poor, AND A DOVE he can't lose.  And then he went to CA.  Who do we know from CA?  Oh, gee, a couple people huh?  (Including the Chief Justice appointed by "Eisenhower" who presided over the Warren Commission.)

So how p----d was that guy who took his kid to see JFK when Reagan got the nomination?  Don't ask me.  Ask John Hinkley.  Or maybe his brothers dinner partner the day before Reagan was shot.  This is a secure line, right?

Well, Morambar, I have to straighten this out a little bit:

1. While Ike was playing golf, it was Sherman Adams, not Nixon, who was "running" the country. Ike hated Nixon - - never even invited him and Pat to dinner once in 8 years. One reason he hated him was that Ike had intended for Earl Warren to be VP. But Nixon showed up 2 weeks ahead of Warren at the Convention and had the spot all sewn up by the time Warren arrived. Ike made him Chief Justice as a consolation prize.

He also hated Nixon because he was a sneaky bastard. In any event, Ike was dead set against Americans in foreign wars. Remember who ended Korea? The "aid" Ike gave deGaulle for Indochina was minimal: just to show support - - not take over for the French. We got started in Vietnam under JFK but only on a small scale. Speculation has it that Kennedy was going to "declare victory" as a boost for re-election and withdraw most of the US troops. But then he went to Dallas to help shore up the Democratic Party (why couldn't Johnson have done that? Why else would Kennedy have agreed to have a crude SOB like him on the ticket if not for keeping Texas together?)

2. Johnson was the consummate politician and only made his "I will not seek" speech after concluding that he could not win the election. And he hated close elections, especially if he couldn't steal the votes he needed to win. Like Kennedy did in Illinois in 1960. But Johnson was not stupid. He realised (too late) that all the military advisors had been telling him lies from day one. His answer was to bully his way to victory - - more troops, more bombing, more money - - but it didn't work. Finally, seeing himself losing in 68, he simply chose not to run.

3. I don't really see a JFK, RFK, MLK link, other than the latter two were, IMHO, very special people whose continued existance would have made for a much better America than we now have.

[Livyjr]

Isn't that now "un-American", jeffmoskin, holding our leaders responsible for anything at all?

Because then, of course, the "PEOPLE" themselves would have to start acting in a responsible manner as well, and where would that lead us to?

Integrity?

That's no fun!

No, that's no fun at all, and well, if you don't want to take my word for it, just ask "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY Delay, the "HEADMAN of somebody or other's CONGRESS down there in Washington, D$C$, and he'll set you "straight", and that's a fact:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Lobbyist financed DeLay airfare, papers show - Embattled lawmaker denies breaking House ethics rules"

By R. Jeffrey Smith

Updated: 12:20 a.m. ET April 24, 2005

The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.

DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.

DeLay defends arrangements

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists.

DeLay, who is now House majority leader, has said that his expenses on this trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper.

He has also said he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.

The documents obtained by The Washington Post, including receipts for his hotel stays in Scotland and London and billings for his golfing during the trip at the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland, substantiate for the first time that some of DeLay's expenses on the trip were billed to charge cards used by the two lobbyists.

The invoice for DeLay's plane fare lists the name of what was then Abramoff's lobbying firm, Preston Gates & Ellis.

Multiple sources, including DeLay's then-chief of staff Susan Hirschmann, have confirmed that DeLay's congressional office was in direct contact with Preston Gates about the trip itinerary before DeLay's departure, to work out details of his travel.

These contacts raise questions about DeLay's statement that he had no way of knowing about the financial and logistical support provided by Abramoff and his firm.

Yesterday, DeLay's lawyer, Bobby R. Burchfield, said that DeLay's staff was aware that Preston Gates was trying to arrange meetings and hotels for the trip but that DeLay was unaware of the "logistics" of bill payments, and that DeLay "continues to understand his expenses" were properly paid by the nonprofit organization, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Organization's role questioned

In 2000, Abramoff was a board member of the group.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Hirschmann said the contacts between DeLay's office and persons at Preston Gates occurred because Abramoff "was a board member of the sponsoring organization."

Hirschmann added: "We were assured that the National Center paid for the trip."

House rules do not exempt such nonprofit organization board members from the prohibition on lobbyist payments for travel.

They also state that this prohibition "applies even where the lobbyist . . . will later be reimbursed for those expenses by a non-lobbyist client."

Burchfield did not dispute that Abramoff used his credit card to pay for DeLay's plane fare, but said in a statement that "the majority leader has always believed and continues to believe that all appropriate expenses for the U.K. trip were paid by the National Center for Public Policy Research."

He said that "to the extent that Mr. Abramoff put the charges on his personal credit card, Mr. DeLay has no knowledge of this."

"But that would be consistent with Mr. Abramoff obtaining full reimbursement from the National Center."

He said further that, in his view, Abramoff's participation on this trip as a board member meant he was permitted to pay for some of the expenses, subject to reimbursement, and that numerous court decisions recognize that different rules may be applicable to the same person acting in different capacities.

Trip called ‘educational’

Andrew Blum, a publicist for Abramoff's lawyer and spokesman for Abramoff, did not respond to questions relating to the use of Abramoff's credit card for DeLay's plane fare.

But he said in a statement yesterday that it was the National Center that "sponsored" the trip, "not Jack Abramoff."

Blum said that DeLay was "one of the center's honored guests on this trip" and that Abramoff "is being singled out for doing what is commonly done by lobbyists — taking trips with members of Congress and their staff so that they can learn about issues that impact the Congress and government policy."

The center's ability to sponsor "this type of educational trip, using contributor funds, is both legal and proper," Blum said.

DeLay was admonished three times last year by the House ethics committee for infringing rules governing lawmakers' activities and their contacts with registered lobbyists.

House ethics rules bar the payment by lobbyists for any lawmaker's travel-connected entertainment and recreational activities costing more than $50; they also require that lawmakers accurately report the sponsor of their trips and the full cost.

In an article last month about the same trip by DeLay, The Post reported that an Indian tribe and a gambling services company made donations to the National Center for Public Policy Research that covered most of the expenses declared by participants at that time.

The article also said these payments were made two months before DeLay voted against legislation opposed by the tribe and the company.

DeLay has said the vote was unrelated to the payments.

The article also reported that Abramoff submitted an expense voucher to Preston Gates seeking a reimbursement of $12,789.73 to cover expenses for meals, hotels and transportation during the London and Scotland trip incurred by DeLay; his wife, Christine; and his two aides.

Receipts detail trip expenses

The new receipts add more detail about these expenses, make clear that the total expenses for all of the participants were at least $50,000 more than was previously known, and connect Abramoff directly to the payment of some charges.

For DeLay, the 10-day trip began on May 25 with a flight to London from Dulles airport and ended on June 3 with a return trip from Europe via Newark and ending in Houston.

In between, his itinerary called for stops in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St. Andrews, in Scotland.

DeLay said the purpose of the trip was to hold meetings with "Conservative leaders" in Britain and Scotland, including Margaret Thatcher.

The former prime minister's office has confirmed that such a meeting occurred.

DeLay's two aides, Tony Rudy and Susan Hirschmann, had an overlapping itinerary; Rudy participated from May 29 to June 3, and Hirschmann participated from May 22 to June 2.

The spouses of Rudy and Buckham also were present.

The travel receipts do not make clear how the expenses for the entire trip — which involved at least 10 people and which two sources said exceeded $120,000 — were paid.

One source familiar with the billings said yesterday that the National Center reimbursed Abramoff for the charges incurred by DeLay and his staff that were billed to Abramoff's credit card; but the receipts themselves do not indicate whether some of the charges incurred by Abramoff were ultimately reimbursed and, if so, by whom.

The receipts make clear that flights for DeLay and his wife were initially billed to Abramoff.

The plane ticket for the husband of one of DeLay's aides — David Hirschmann — was billed to the same American Express card used for the DeLay tickets, according to a copy of the invoice.

Although Amy Ridenour, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, has said she organized the trip, two other sources said that DeLay's round-trip business-class tickets on Continental Airlines and British Airways were booked by Preston Gates employees.

The itinerary and invoice for DeLay's trip, prepared by a travel service in Seattle, was sent by the service to Preston Gates on May 23, 2000, according to a copy of the invoice.

That was two days before DeLay's departure.

The invoice states that DeLay's business-class tickets on Continental Airlines and British Airways cost $6,938.70.

Some expenses not reported

The records also indicate that the expenses associated with DeLay exceeded those that he declared in a signed statement to the House clerk on June 30, 2000.

That form listed the purpose of the trip as "educational" and gave a tally of $28,106 in expenses for DeLay and his wife, or an average of $2,800 a day; it stated that all of these charges were paid by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which provided the data to DeLay.

Receipts from the golfing portion of the trip show that DeLay accumulated additional charges, which, according to fees set by the tour arranger, amounted to nearly $5,000 for each golfer and totaled in the tens of thousands of dollars for the entire group.

Fees associated with playing golf are not listed on DeLay's travel disclosure form.

Burchfield, DeLay's lawyer, said DeLay "personally paid for two rounds of golf and understands that the other two rounds of golf he played were included in his hotel package" and reimbursed by the National Center.

DeLay’s ex-staffer, wife on firm's payroll

A copy of the $81 bill for the DeLays' expenses during the trip at a separate hotel in St. Andrews — the Old Course Hotel Golf Resort & Spa — states that those charges were paid by the same American Express credit card used on the trip by Buckham, the lobbyist, to pay for his own hotel room at the Glasgow Hilton.

Buckham could not be reached by phone at home or his office and did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

Burchfield said he cannot explain how this happened and did not know who owned this credit card; he also said DeLay was unaware of this fact.

Buckham, a former chief of staff to DeLay, was at the time a registered lobbyist for AT&T, Enron Corp., and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

DeLay's wife was employed, at the time of the trip, by Buckham's lobbying firm, the Alexander Strategy Group, and was receiving a salary from it, according to DeLay's personal financial disclosure statement for that year, on file with the House clerk.

Abramoff, at the time of the trip, represented eLottery Inc., a gambling services company that opposed the Internet gambling bill pending before the House.

Preston Gates registered as a lobbyist for eLottery on June 2, 2000, one day before the trip ended; later in the year, Abramoff registered as a lobbyist for other clients who opposed the bill, including several Indian tribes.

The federal probe is looking into his handling of his tribal clients and the large fees he was paid.

Hirschmann and her husband ultimately accumulated charges of 2,073 British pounds, or about $1,368 at the prevailing exchange rate for four nights in their "superior" room at the London Four Seasons Hotel.

Those charges included $57 at the hotel lounge, $33 from the room bar, $15 from the gift shop, and $186 for chauffeured cars, according to a copy of their hotel bill.

Hirschmann said one car was used to reach the meeting with Thatcher.

At least one of the Hirschmanns also played golf at St. Andrews.

Susan Hirschmann is now a lobbyist at the Washington firm of Williams & Jensen; the firm's Web site contains a published claim that DeLay and other House Republican leaders are in frequent contact with her.

As a staff member at the time of the trip, she would have been covered by the same ethics rules that apply to DeLay and other House members.

Rudy, her staff colleague at the time, now works for Buckham's lobbying firm.

Delay ‘does not know how the logistics’

DeLay and his wife, for their part, stayed for four nights in a "conservatory" room at the same hotel in London as Hirschmann, accumulating charges of roughly $348 a night for rooms that included a glass-enclosed porch overlooking London's Park Lane, according to a copy of the bill for their stay and the Web site of the hotel.

They also ran up hotel charges of $64 for room service, $6 for a valet pressing and $133 for a private car from Heathrow airport, the bill states.

Their room bill also lists a charge of $191 for six theater tickets, but Burchfield said the DeLays do not recall attending any plays in London.

He said if the hotel charges were being "picked up" by a representative of the National Center, "they would not necessarily have seen the hotel bill."

DeLay, Burchfield said, "does not know how the logistics . . . [of the bill payments for the trip] were being effectuated."

House ethics rules contain detailed provisions barring the acceptance of any travel funds from private sources if doing so would "create the appearance of using public office for private gain."

They also obligate lawmakers to "make inquiry on the source of the funds that will be used to pay" for any travel ostensibly financed by a nonprofit organization — to rule out the acceptance of reimbursements that come from one organization when a trip is "in fact organized and conducted by someone else."

Trips outside the United States are also not supposed to exceed a week in length out of concern, the rules state, for "the public perception that such trips often may amount to paid vacations for the Member and his family at the expense of special interest groups."

Research editor Lucy Shackelford and researchers Alice Crites and Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

end quotes

"Land of the brave"?

BULL****!

How about "LAND OF THE SLEAZY", instead!

Or the grossly ignorant, if this fancy lawyer, Bobby R. Burchfield, is right about "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" not knowing anything about nothing at all!

[Livyjr]

Well, Morambar, I have to straighten this out a little bit:

1. While Ike was playing golf, it was Sherman Adams, not Nixon, who was "running" the country.

Ike hated Nixon - - never even invited him and Pat to dinner once in 8 years.

3. I don't really see a JFK, RFK, MLK link, other than the latter two were, IMHO, very special people whose continued existance would have made for a much better America than we now have.

And, Morambar, I am with jeffmoskin here, on conspiracy theories in general, that they are a waste of time, breath, and space to bother even talking about.

As to where George W. Bush might have been on that day, so what?

George W. Bush and I are of an age, and I know that when Kennedy was killed, it is entirely possible that I could have been there alone, to see him, at the age I was, and so, George W. Bush certainly could have been as well; so that is grounds for nothing.

And what difference if he was chaperoned!

Kenedy was killed, either way!

And he is gone.

Not to come back!

Same way with MLK and Bobby Kennedy.

They're gone!

And to spend time talking about how or why does not bring them back, and it only distracts me, anyway, away from what is happening today, and what might happen tomarrow.

My thoughts, anyway!

[Livyjr]

"How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler Rise to Power"

by BEN ARIS & DUNCAN CAMPBELL (THE GUARDIAN - U.K.)

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time.

There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair.

But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power.

It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him.

But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz.

The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages.

The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised."

"He made available all records and all documents."

"Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

Old Prescott Bush, or "Cottie", as I have heard he was called up there "on the HILL", as in "oh, that Cottie, he ain't a bad, old boy at all", and you know, maybe he's not, in the end, such a "bad, old boy" as they say, but in the meantime, he was dealing with the Nazis, and that is a fact.

And you have to wonder, when financial support of an ideology is at issue, as was the case here, exactly where this man did stand!

Was it just a case of the Nazis having a lot of ill-gotten money that they had to be able to move around, and essentially launder, and so were good to do BID-NESS with, because of that, or was it more?

Of course, as they say, old "Cottie" Bush is gone, and well, young George holds the throne now, but you wonder how far any apple does ever fall from its own tree, and with young George, well, his own seeming tendencies towards abolishing OUR democracy make me have to wonder whose "playbook" he is really playing from here, especially as BID-NESS boys like "Cottie" Bush would not have been backing what they thought was a loser back there in the 1930's.

To the contrary, they, like a lot of other American BID-NESS men, thought the National Socialists were going to be the big winners in Europe, and so, they wanted to be "fondly remembered" as "contributers" in the early days, so that they could get lots of "candy" when the heyday came to town!

Was "Cottie" Bush simply amoral?

Was he in fact as dumb as a stump, as some would say of this otherwise genial and gregarious man?

Interesting questions all, and they are certainly food for thought, and as we go along in here, I wouldn't be surprised if from time to time, comparisons between George W. Bush and old "Cottie" continue to be made, since it is in fact a DYNASTY that we are talking about here with the Bushes, and not just some plain, old American family out there in OUR America that deserves its anonymity!

As for me, I think this last sentence above here really shows us where we have come to in OUR America since the days of old "Cottie" Bush, where the Bush family says in this book about old "Cottie" that compared to the financial robbers and corporate looters that we have today in OUR America, why, old "Cottie" wasn't much of anything at all!

But it WAS, WHAT HE WAS, and NOT, what he wasn't, that makes all the difference, and so ......

[anderson_perry]

Well, Morambar, I have to straighten this out a little bit:

1. While Ike was playing golf, it was Sherman Adams, not Nixon, who    was "running" the country. Ike hated Nixon - - never even invited him and Pat to dinner once in 8 years. One reason he hated him was that Ike had intended for Earl Warren to be VP. But Nixon showed up 2 weeks ahead of Warren at the Convention and had the spot all sewn up by the time Warren arrived. Ike made him Chief Justice as a consolation prize.

He also hated Nixon because he was a sneaky bastard. In any event, Ike was dead set against Americans in foreign wars. Remember who ended Korea? The "aid" Ike gave deGaulle for Indochina was minimal: just to show support - - not take over for the French. We got started in Vietnam under JFK but only on a small scale. Speculation has it that Kennedy was going to "declare victory" as a boost for re-election and withdraw most of the US troops. But then he went to Dallas to help shore up the Democratic Party (why couldn't Johnson have done that?  Why else would Kennedy have agreed to have a crude SOB like him on the ticket if not for keeping Texas together?)

2. Johnson was the consummate politician and only made his "I will not seek" speech after concluding that he could not win the election. And he hated close elections, especially if he couldn't steal the votes he needed to win. Like Kennedy did in Illinois in 1960. But Johnson was not stupid. He realised (too late) that all the military advisors had been telling him lies from day one. His answer was to bully his way to victory - - more troops, more bombing, more money - - but it didn't work. Finally, seeing himself losing in 68, he simply chose not to run.

3. I don't really see a JFK, RFK, MLK link, other than the latter two were, IMHO, very special people whose continued existance would have made for a much better America than we now have.

quite an education... thank you!



- perry
'

[anderson_perry]

Old Prescott Bush, or "Cottie", as I have heard he was called up there "on the HILL", as in "oh, that Cottie, he ain't a bad, old boy at all", and you know, maybe he's not, in the end, such a "bad, old boy" as they say, but in the meantime, he was dealing with the Nazis, and that is a fact.

And you have to wonder, when financial support of an ideology is at issue, as was the case here, exactly where this man did stand!

Was it just a case of the Nazis having a lot of ill-gotten money that they had to be able to move around, and essentially launder, and so were good to do BID-NESS with, because of that, or was it more?

Of course, as they say, old "Cottie" Bush is gone, and well, young George holds the throne now, but you wonder how far any apple does ever fall from its own tree, and with young George, well, his own seeming tendencies towards abolishing OUR democracy make me have to wonder whose "playbook" he is really playing from here, especially as BID-NESS boys like "Cottie" Bush would not have been backing what they thought was a loser back there in the 1930's.

To the contrary, they, like a lot of other American BID-NESS men, thought the National Socialists were going to be the big winners in Europe, and so, they wanted to be "fondly remembered" as "contributers" in the early days, so that they could get lots of "candy" when the heyday came to town!

Was "Cottie" Bush simply amoral?

Was he in fact as dumb as a stump, as some would say of this otherwise genial and gregarious man?

Interesting questions all, and they are certainly food for thought, and as we go along in here, I wouldn't be surprised if from time to time, comparisons between George W. Bush and old "Cottie" continue to be made, since it is in fact a DYNASTY that we are talking about here with the Bushes, and not just some plain, old American family out there in OUR America that deserves its anonymity!

As for me, I think this last sentence above here really shows us where we have come to in OUR America since the days of old "Cottie" Bush, where the Bush family says in this book about old "Cottie" that compared to the financial robbers and corporate looters that we have today in OUR America, why, old "Cottie" wasn't much of anything at all!

But it WAS, WHAT HE WAS, and NOT, what he wasn't, that makes all the difference, and so ......

what i find interesting is that i first heard of prescott bush while reviewing MJ5 or the majestic five, also known as the folks that tried to minimize the events of Roswell and other related incidents....

was there an "arrangment " made between Truman and the E.T.'s ? who knows....

but isn't it interesting that the U.S. government has hundreds of billions of dollars to spend trying to hit one bullet with another.... despite the ever shrinking american dollar

are we using the whole aliens/angels concept as a ruse to spend more money on the military ?????

i think the last report indicated that 166 billion dollars was spent only to "officially" fail to hit one missile with another missile. i say it's all an attempt to put alot of money into a few pockets....

and nobody really bothers with the whole concept of angels or aliens because if they were for real and if they even remotely had the slightest interesting in interfering with our tiny 3rd rock from the sun... i really wonder what we can do short of "their" stupidity

and thats what i know of "Cottie"

- perry

This post has been edited by anderson_perry: Apr 24 2005, 04:03 PM

[Livyjr]

what i find interesting is that i first heard of prescott bush while reviewing MJ5 or the majestic five, also known as the folks that tried to minimize the events of Roswell and other related incidents....

but isn't it interesting that the U.S. government has hundreds of billions of dollars to spend trying to hit one bullet with another.... despite the ever shrinking american dollar

are we using the whole aliens/angels concept as a ruse to spend more money on the military?????

i think the last report indicated that 166 billion dollars was spent only to "officially" fail to hit one missile with another missile.

i say it's all an attempt to put a lot of money into a few pockets....

and thats what i know of "Cottie".

- perry

Never a dull moment in here, perry, is there.

And jeffmoskin is a good source of information, which is quite an education, indeed!

And this is interesting, what you have to say on the one hand about "Cottie" Bush and this "MJ5", which I have never heard of, and this business of trying to shoot a "bullet with a bullet", as you say, which is this qua-trillion dollar "missle system" that you are talking about, which definitely does put a whole lot of money in the pockets of a few, which is the American "way", of course, at least as far as the REPUBLICANS are concerned.

I always wonder when I hear of these certain few wanting to get to all these other planets or whatever, like Mars, whether we might have some stranded "explorers" down here who are trying to get back to where they really came from, like George W. Bush, perhaps, with Mars!

And as to all these missles that George W. Bush is so worried about, who has them is what I am wondering!

Putin?

The Newfies?

The French?

Or maybe the Calipari guy that got popped over there in Iraq?

Or is it really that the Martians are this real big threat that I am hearing all about?

Issues!

Always issues!

SO!

Stay tuned.

[anderson_perry]

and nobody really bothers with the whole concept of angels or aliens because if they were for real and if they even remotely had the slightest interesting in interfering with our tiny 3rd rock from the sun... i really wonder what we can do short of "their" stupidity

CORRECTION

and nobody really bothers with the whole concept of angels or aliens because if they were a real threat and/or if they even remotely had the slightest interest in interfering with our tiny 3rd rock from the sun... i really wonder what we can do short of "their" stupidity

thats not say they do not exist, i for one find it interesting to see footprints of "watcher" activity from today all the way back to ancient documents like the book of enoch

- perry

[Livyjr]

thats not say they do not exist, i for one find it interesting to see footprints of "watcher" activity from today all the way back to ancient documents like the book of enoch

- perry

I wonder, perry, myself about knowledge and abilities that the "ancients" had, that surpass some of our abilities today, in the field of engineering, for example, and in the knowledge that the ancient Taoists had about the human body itself, in an age where no modern scientific equipment, such as electron microscopes, existed that would have allowed those ancients to "see" some of what they knew to be.

I always find this thing of "knowledge" to be an interesting equation, because "knowledge" never seems to be distributed equally among all peoples in all places, and the "sum" of all knowledge, so to speak, is also not in any way constant.

What knowledge there once was is not necessarily what there is today, and so, I wonder.

And I don't have a problem with angels, perry!

Why shouldn't they exist, too?

After all, we do!

[Livyjr]

Politics

"Critics say Frist using religion for political ends - Connection to groups may be sign of future run for higher office"

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:07 p.m. ET April 23, 2005

WASHINGTON - It may seem like Sen. Bill Frist has found religion in recent weeks.

At least, that’s what critics say about the Senate majority leader’s recent alignment with social conservative groups on high-profile issues.

Their charge is that Frist is playing to religious groups to gather support for political issues — and potentially for a future presidential race.

The Tennessee Republican took some heat when Congress stepped into a legal fight over the life of a brain-damaged Florida woman last month.

The critics have grown louder since he agreed to participate in an event on Sunday organized by Christian groups trying to rally churchgoers to support ending the judicial filibuster.

“He seems to be going out of his way to pander to the radical religious right leaders,” said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal group that has worked to block several of President Bush’s appointments to the courts.

“Many people have commented that it seems to be commensurate with his aspirations to be president of the United States.”

Sunday broadcast

Sunday’s event, organized by the conservative Family Research Council, will be in a Louisville, Ky., church and broadcast across the country.

Fliers for “Justice Sunday” charge the filibuster is “being used against people of faith.”

Frist’s office says he plans to submit a four-minute videotape with the same Constitution-focused message he has given other groups.

But his participation has raised loud protests.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said it sent Frist a petition Friday signed by 20,000 people asking him “to abandon such dishonest and irresponsible tactics that politicize faith, abuse power and drown out the voice of ordinary Americans.”

The leaders of several nationwide denominations on Friday joined the chorus urging Frist to reconsider his participation in the event.

Among them was the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Frist’s denomination.

Most people said Frist has the right to join Christian groups or ask for their backing on important issues but called the rhetoric surrounding Sunday’s event inflammatory.

“His presence is giving credibility to people who have made a stark political issue a litmus test for judging religion,” said C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Washington-based Interfaith Alliance and the pastor of a Louisiana church.

Shift in focus?

Frist is a conservative who has consistently supported the type of issues that rally right-leaning Christian groups.

He was a leader of the opposition to gay marriage, and when he laid out an agenda on the first day of the 109th Congress in January, he mentioned “marriage, families and a culture of life that protects human dignity at every stage of development.”

A Frist spokesman said the Constitution has been the senator’s constant concern during the filibuster fight, and his position on Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman, was “clear and consistent” throughout the debate.

But some say there’s been a shift in his focus.

“If you think about Bill Frist since he was majority leader, his strong suit was his intersection of science and medicine ... and his rational good government,” said James Hudnut-Beumler, dean of Vanderbilt University’s Divinity School and a scholar of American religious history.

“I think that’s still there, but to lead on a national stage, you have people who press you to come out on other issues and fronts.”

Higher aspirations?
Frist has said he will give up his Senate seat when his term ends next year, but he hasn’t answered — or discouraged — speculation that he will run for president in 2008.

Luis Lugo, director of the nonpartisan, non-advocacy Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said religion and religious groups are crucial factors for any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

“Any politician ... who aspires to public office ... has to come to terms with the fact that religious conservatives are a critically important part of the Republican Party,” he said.

Tapping into the political force of a religious group, however, can be a divisive process when closely held moral values are at stake.

The filibuster debate comes up at a time when the nation is vociferously arguing over whether to trust “activist” judges.

“It’s a little bit of a third rail,” said Hudnut-Beumler.

Frist is “hoping to draw some power from it."

"Electric trains do draw power from the third rail, but people sometimes do get electrocuted.”

Frist belongs to Presbyterian churches in Washington and Tennessee, has taken medical mission trips to Africa and other parts of the world, and is a regular at the National Prayer Breakfast.

And even critics say it isn’t possible to discern a person’s true faith.

But Gaddy said he is concerned about “the transition from religion as a source of values and wisdom, to religion as a strategy for passing legislation or winning an election.”

“I don’t judge people’s motives,” he said.

“If Sen. Frist sees this as an essential step in launching a presidential campaign, he’s more involved in a stumble than a step.”

[Livyjr]

Ahhh, ChoicePoint!

A name from the past.

A name that shall live in infamy.

Not having an honest press here in OUR America, from across the Pond comes Greg Palast, reporter for the UK Guardian, author of "The best Government Money Can Buy:"

Here's is how the Bush family stole Florida from Al Gore:

Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program - Salon.com's politics story of the year
www.Salon.com

Monday, December 4, 2000

If Vice President Al Gore is wondering where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad, he might want to look at a "scrub list" of 173,000 names targeted to be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

A close examination suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list that included purported "felons" provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties.

Politics

"Voting agency chairman quits in protest - Says government has not shown commitment to reform"

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:11 p.m. ET April 22, 2005

WASHINGTON - The first chairman of the federal voting agency created after the 2000 election dispute is resigning, saying the government has not shown enough of a commitment to reform.

DeForest Soaries, a Baptist minister, said Friday that his resignation from the commission created by Congress would take effect next week.

Soaries, 53, cited personal reasons for resigning and said he wants to spend more time with his family in New Jersey — but he added the decision was prompted in part by a lack of support for the commission from Congress and the federal government.

“All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources."

"I don’t think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government,” Soaries told The Associated Press.

Soaries is a Republican who was the White House’s pick to join the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help states enact voting reforms.

A former secretary of state of New Jersey, Soaries was confirmed to the commission by the Senate in December 2003 and elected the independent agency’s first chairman by his three fellow commissioners.

His term as chairman ended in January 2005 and since then he’s stayed on as a commission member.

Soaries and the other commissioners complained from the beginning that the commission was underfunded and neglected by the federal lawmakers who created it.

[anderson_perry]

Luis Lugo, director of the nonpartisan, non-advocacy Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said religion and religious groups are crucial factors for any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

“Any politician ... who aspires to public office ... has to come to terms with the fact that religious conservatives are a critically important part of the Republican Party,” he said.

sad but true....

- perry

[anderson_perry]

“All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources."

"I don’t think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government,” Soaries told The Associated Press.

Soaries is a Republican who was the White House’s pick to join the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help states enact voting reforms.

A former secretary of state of New Jersey, Soaries was confirmed to the commission by the Senate in December 2003 and elected the independent agency’s first chairman by his three fellow commissioners.

His term as chairman ended in January 2005 and since then he’s stayed on as a commission member.

Soaries and the other commissioners complained from the beginning that the commission was underfunded and neglected by the federal lawmakers who created it.

- perry

This post has been edited by anderson_perry: Apr 24 2005, 06:16 PM

[Morambar in TX]

Well, Morambar, I have to straighten this out a little bit:

1. While Ike was playing golf, it was Sherman Adams, not Nixon, who    was "running" the country. Ike hated Nixon - - never even invited him and Pat to dinner once in 8 years. One reason he hated him was that Ike had intended for Earl Warren to be VP. But Nixon showed up 2 weeks ahead of Warren at the Convention and had the spot all sewn up by the time Warren arrived. Ike made him Chief Justice as a consolation prize.

He also hated Nixon because he was a sneaky bastard. In any event, Ike was dead set against Americans in foreign wars. Remember who ended Korea? The "aid" Ike gave deGaulle for Indochina was minimal: just to show support - - not take over for the French. We got started in Vietnam under JFK but only on a small scale. Speculation has it that Kennedy was going to "declare victory" as a boost for re-election and withdraw most of the US troops. But then he went to Dallas to help shore up the Democratic Party (why couldn't Johnson have done that?  Why else would Kennedy have agreed to have a crude SOB like him on the ticket if not for keeping Texas together?)

2. Johnson was the consummate politician and only made his "I will not seek" speech after concluding that he could not win the election. And he hated close elections, especially if he couldn't steal the votes he needed to win. Like Kennedy did in Illinois in 1960. But Johnson was not stupid. He realised (too late) that all the military advisors had been telling him lies from day one. His answer was to bully his way to victory - - more troops, more bombing, more money - - but it didn't work. Finally, seeing himself losing in 68, he simply chose not to run.

3. I don't really see a JFK, RFK, MLK link, other than the latter two were, IMHO, very special people whose continued existance would have made for a much better America than we now have.

If you have a chance, you might want to pick up a copy of "The Drew Pearson Diaries." Very insightful and informing. Nixon got on the ticket as an anti-Commie, and that decision was long before the convention. Ikes problem was he wanted to be President, he just didn't want to BE President. If it hadn't been for Truman we would probably have seen the '49 inauguration of DEMOCRATIC President Eisenhower (and the world might be a much better place.) On the subject of LBJ, they had their differences, but agreed on policy, besides which, who nominated JFK for VP in '56?

We got started in a proxy fight under Eisenhower and if he didn't know what was really going on there, well, that's true of most of his administration. JFK just made Americas commitment real instead of verbal. There's a story that a memo made it to JFK's desk that wasn't supposed to, listing the projected casualties for the next year. This, combined with a visit by MLK informing the President that, at the time, most of the Vietnam casualties were black soldiers who had joined the Army as the only realistic hope of providing for thier families, and that it had better stop if he wanted their support for reelection, prompted JFK to issue the order that we were getting out. That was in April or May of '63, and you know the rest.

Your analysis of LBJ's view of the war is dead on I think. So why did he stay in? The same reason as JFK: he felt an obligation to the Vietnamese people to honor Ikes commitment. Vietnam BROKE LBJ. Personal defeat was one thing, but the war scuttled the Great Society, and was the beginning of the end for American liberalism for at least a generation. Since then we've been fighting a holding action to keep as much of the New Deal as we can; SS and FDIC are about the only things left since the gold standard went bye-bye under Nixon and took minimum wage with it, and 41 got rid of FSLIC. I brought up the '68 election to illustrate one point: when RFK was shot he was no threat to an incumbent who refused to run, but a very large threat to the man his brother beat in '60. The shock is not the connection between JFK, RFK, and MLK; the shock is that Wallace was probably shot for the same reason: to insure Nixons victory in '68. Of course, another Kennedy might have beaten him in '72, but....

I see Livyjr IS familiar with Greg Palast. Wondered if I might have been preaching to the choir.

This post has been edited by Morambar in TX: Apr 24 2005, 06:41 PM

[Morambar in TX]

And to spend time talking about how or why does not bring them back, and it only distracts me, anyway, away from what is happening today, and what might happen tomarrow.

My thoughts, anyway!

I only mention it because what happened then is what's happening today. The leadership of the Greedy Old Party has been an unbroken chain of succession since 1952, and the goals have not changed, which is why, except for the repeal of FDIC vetoed by Clinton, they have mostly been realized.