[cia-drugs] Randi Rhodes site link. narco-fascist drug war. Air America radio host.
Randi Rhodes website http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/todaysshows http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live links to one of my webpages. See the "narco-fascist drug war" link below: 03.31.2006 Talk to The Randi Rhodes ShowLIVE (3-7pm ET) 1.866.303.2270 Randi's CHANGE for CHANGEWe've teamed with Habitat for Humanity to help rebuild the Gulf Coast.DETAILS | DONATECatch Randi TONIGHT on CNNs Larry King Live (on after Bill Clinton)Sen. Russ Feingolds censure resolution is debated in committee today. Randi has the clips.The right wing corporatists show their true colors "The millions of young men who are prisoners in our country can pick the fruit and vegetables." - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)Yep, prison slave labor. The US comprises 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the world prisoners thanks in large part to the narco-fascist drug war. The US incarceration rate also is the highest in the Western World.And as we move closer to reopening debtor prisons in the US, the corporatists are scrambling to figure out how to profit off of all this. Freedoms on the march man!Today also commemorates the second anniversary of Casey Sheehans entry into Baghdad.And today marks 2 years since Randis first show on Air America!These stories and much more on todays Randi Rhodes Show. --end of webpage excerpt---The "narco-fascist drug war" link is to: http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/ratesusa.htmMMM (Global Million Marijuana March):http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cannabisactionNewsweek, Nov. 14, 2005, page 36:"The most recent evidence comes from autopsies of 44 prisoners who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in U.S. custody. Most died under circumstances that suggest torture. The reports use words like 'strangulation,' 'asphyxiation' and 'blunt force injuries.' ... A few months before the [Abu Ghraib] scandal broke [spring 2004], Coalition Provisional Authority polls showed Iraqi support at 63 percent. A month after Abu Ghraib, the number was 9 percent. Polls showed that 71 percent of Iraqis were surprised by the revelations." Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[cia-drugs] Being Leo Strauss
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=341 Being Leo Strauss Monday April 17th 2006, 6:52 pm Leave it up to the Straussian house organ, the Weekly Standard, to write about Leo Strauss without really saying too much about Leo Strauss. In the latest issue, Steven J. Lenzner reviews Heinrich Meiers Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem. Meir, described as a prominent interpreter of Rousseau, apparently tackled Strauss after an exhausting dissection of the political theologian Carl Schmitt, who was a Nazi (no mention that here). Strauss showed that the underlying basis of Schmitts affirmation of the political was a profound dissatisfaction with liberalismthat is, with liberal universalism and its aspirations for boundless security and a life that seeks fulfillment in the interesting and entertaining. Liberalism, according to Schmitt, was above all a rejection of the political, the characteristic distinction of which he held to be the division into friends and enemies. Such a lifelacking the passion and commitment that would lead one to die for a causeseemed to Schmitt a rejection of all that was high and vital in man, writes Lenzner. Classical liberalism, as opposed to modern liberalism, can be defined as a tradition which holds libertyfreedom of thought, limited government, the rule of law, and the free exchange of ideasas a primary political value (the word liberal comes from the Latin liber, or free). Schmitt rejected the idea of liberty and embraced dictatorial government and the German concept of Ausnahmezustand, or a state of emergency, and the disencumbering of the executive branch from all legal (and moral) restraint, as Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire Decree. For Schmitt, Ausnahmezustand (literally, state of exception) allowed the executive, as a dictatorial office not obliged to a Constitution, to engage in violence under right, thus transforming the state into a death machine (Schmitt would later condone the Night of the Long Knives as the highest form of administrative justice). It only takes a cursory glance to see an ugly glimmer of this authoritarian philosophy at work in the Bush administration under the sway of the Straussian neoconsfrom Guantanamo Bay to the NSA snoop scandal and beyond (note: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) accuse Bush in separate letters of illegally initiating military action against Iran without congressional authorization and plan to introduce a resolution in opposition). Meiers complex exposition and arguments give no inkling of the fascistic character of Carl Schmitt and his student Leo Strauss, at least not in Steven J. Lenzners review of his book. Instead, Meir apparently investigates, in Strauss words, the relation between society and philosophy, not the ultimate outcome of that philosophy (the effort to destroy classical liberalism and create a dictatorship). In contrast to the widespread abuse of mining Strausss works for snippets that ostensibly show Strausss agenda, Meier treats them as invitations to think about the most important problems; that is, to philosophize, that is, to avoid the terrible totality of the Straussian philosophy with its underpinnings in the authoritarian theology of Machiavelli and Schmitt. Hardcore Straussians like to call this esotericism. The esoteric, or supposedly secret teaching which [Strauss] inculcated into [Thomas] Pangle, [Allan] Bloom, Werner Dannhauser, and many others, including, reportedly, Blooms protégé Paul Wolfowitz, was indeed pure Nietzsche, writes Tony Papert. From Nietzsche to Leo Strauss, only the names have been changed, as they say. To begin with, what Nietzsche called the superman, or the next man, Strauss calls the philosopher. Papert continues: It is the supermen/philosophers who provide the herd with the religious, moral, and other beliefs they require, but which the supermen themselves know to be lies. Nietzsche said that his supermen were atheistic priests, and Strauss pretends that their lies are noble lies. But they do not do this out of benevolence, of course; charity and benevolence are mocked by Nietzsche and Strauss as unworthy of gods and godlike men. Rather, the philosophers use these falsehoods to shape society in the interest of these philosophers themselves. Lenzner tells us by serving as a timely and enticing summons to accept Strausss generosity, Meiers work helps us begin to understand the greatness of Strauss as a philosopher. That is an achievement worthy of note and gratitude. Strauss is all about Nietzschean relativism (the Nazis liked this about Nietzsche toomade it easier to kill millions of people) and Hegelian historicismthat is, the end of history and, as Nietzsche saw it, a return the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy (Strauss, however, sternly rejected the Socratic question: What is the good for the
[cia-drugs] Betrayed by the Bench.
DEFCON 3 ALERT Please Repost To Your Lists "Betrayed by the Bench."It was called "None Dare Call It Treason," by John Stormer. It sold millions of copies. It birthed the conservative movement. It awakened a generation that would later bring Ronald Reagan to the presidency. Now John Stormer is back with another book designed to alert a new generation to another threat to the American republic. It's called "Betrayed by the Bench." And while there have been other efforts to sound the alarm on judicial tyranny in America, no one does it like Stormer a modern-day Paul Revere riding his midnight ride. Unlike any other book on the subject, Stormer traces the origin of this betrayal of the U.S. Constitution and the elevation of judicial power. "Betrayed by the Bench" examines how the 19th century academic theories of Hegel and Darwin transformed legal education, the courts and our culture. Its underlying theme reveals the impact of God's historical intervention through the Great Awakening of the 1740-1785 period and, again, in the revival of 1857. Do Not Tread On Us.Try To Silence One FIGHT US ALL "Your" Coalition For Universal Liberty FreedomTemplar's Campaign For The Restoration of the Bill Of RightsOur First Amendment tradition protects even speech that is deliberately provocative or offensive. For good reason. In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Justice William O. Douglas noted that civil rights leaders often used speech that "induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."Visit The National Archives for a Little Free Speech Education New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[cia-drugs] Unsecured National Borders the DEATH OF OUR REPUBLIC
Unsecured National Borders the DEATH OFOUR REPUBLICDEFCON 3 ALERT Please Repost To Your ListsI say It's time for some BACKBONE from us key punchers. GOD KNOWS I am NOT a RACIST, I am NOT a BIGOT, but on this matter Lou Dobbs is a BIG Hands Off. Dobbs as Sober and Cautious as he has been , HAS SHOWN SOME OLD FASHION PATRIOTIC NERVE when it comes to speaking up for Working American Families.I ask personally that the CLARION CALL GO FORTH, Dobbs has after all EARNED IT. Do Not Tread On Us.Try To Silence One FIGHT US ALL "Your" Coalition For Universal Liberty FreedomTemplar's Campaign For The Restoration of the Bill Of RightsOur First Amendment tradition protects even speech that is deliberately provocative or offensive. For good reason. In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Justice William O. Douglas noted that civil rights leaders often used speech that "induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."Visit The National Archives for a Little Free Speech Education"William A. Bacon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Subject: Illegals nat'l campaign to OUST LOU DOBBS kicks off May 1Again, it is not the economy, stupid, IT IS THE MEDIATAKING LOU DOBBS OFF THE AIR IS LIKE SURRENDERING THE USA TO INVADERS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY. Wait, isnt the United States Senate, grillions of liberals and insatiable employers doing just that, one illegal alien at a time? It is no secret to anyone of the absolute disgust I hold for AOL as an ISP. Saw this on American Border Patrol page this evening and thought it needs tobe shared. The INVADERS are really mad about Lou Dobbs - they can't stand the TRUTH getting out there. Too bad Faux News and MSNBC and then the alphabet soup channels ABC - NBC - CBS don't provide factual and constant coverage to those of us demanding that the EXISTING LAWS be enforced. I am so tired of seeing all the coverage of the ILLEGALS and so little of REALAMERICANS. Guess that is why I don't watch those channels or see the commercials - can't buy what I don't see, he. The advertisers should realize what we want to see on NEWS It isn't 50 repeats of Rummy or bush practising his Miss America wave as he walks from the helicopter - what a tiresome waste of film that is. He should at lest wear a bikini or an evening gown just to give some change in that worn out walk and wave he does. Why are we tormented by this kind of coverage anyway. Do we have a bunch of queer camera men who wait for Bush to walk by and wave at them? Onewave would be MORE than sufficient in my opinion - One Wave per term in office.Jackie JunttiWGEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.americanpatrol.com/http://hispanic.cc/ax_aol.htmwww.AxAOL.comLou Dobbs: Self Interested DemagogueryOne who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain ratingsNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO TAKE LOU DOBBS OFF THE AIR KICKS OFF MAY 1Why AOL? Lou Dobbs is the number one money maker for CNN so he is not going anywhere as long as he makes money for CNN and right now he is making a tonof money for CNN bashing "illegal immigration."CNN is owned by Time Warner and Time Warner also owns AOL which is being extensively promoted to increase its value as witnessed last week by selling 5% of AOL stock to Google. This 5% cost Google $1 Billion setting abenchmark value for AOL stock.The Google-AOL deal gives AOL a valuation of $20 billion.Billionaire Time Warner shareholder Carl Icahn who controls 3 percent of Time Warner shares has been organizing a proxy battle for control of TimeWarner wants to sell AOL.We could never directly muzzle Lou Dobbs because the revenue his trashing of Hispanic/Latinos generates for CNN is huge and CNN's revenue belongs to Time Warner.The Achilles heel is AOL. If the value of AOL was to decrease dramatically because of the loss of the Hispanic/Latino market, Time Warner, and more so,Carl Icahn, would move to stop this hemorrhage. The only way to stop the hemorrhage would be to meet the demands of the Hispanic/Latino community: Remove Lou Dobbs off the Air.Why is this so important?The marches, rallies, and protests have been instrumental in the Senate Judiciary Committee's adoption of the McCain Kennedy Immigration Reformproposal and its submission to the Senate for debate. The monumental protests have been heard in Washington and around the USA.As monumental as the protests have energized the Hispanic community, the protests will not take immigration over the top as witnessed by the Senatefailing to approve immigration reform.Time now for a reality check: The US Senate debated immigration reform but the Senate votes to adopt the Kennedy McCain proposal were simply not there!Something else now needs to be added to the protests to take us to the next level if we are going to realize immigration reform as Hispanics favor.Lou DobbsLou Dobbs has become the champion zealot of bashing "illegal
[cia-drugs] Fwd: Drudge Won't Tell You About Lee Raymond
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---BeginMessage--- ---BeginMessage--- Plea to Matt Drudge The American People remain in the dark ... They haven't the slightest Idea what it means to be a member of the Trilateral Commission (TC) , the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)and the Bilderbergers (B). HA, HA, Ha EXXON Chairman Gets $400 Million Retirement Package... Drudge is a coward. Drudge's web site performs a service to the Hegelian dialectic andnot to the American people. He is a conduit for disseminators of propaganda.You can't find anywhere in his site the political facts of life. Drudgeis playing the Left/ Right phoney game constructed by mostly members of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has accepted his narrow role to represent the massaged "conservative" points of view by selecting stories for the "controlled right". Wittingly or notDrudge is assigned a "conservative"mission just as Salon.com has been assigneda "liberal" part to play. Both ultimately are conduits for material managed by the SS like Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) operatives. Drudge and Salonareused likethe reins of a horse to guidethe affairs of the nation in a deliberatedirection. Those controlling the reins and spurs are members or employees of the above mentioned organizations. (CFR), (TC) (B) areseldom if ever mentioned by the deluded "leaders" of the Left and Right. Drudge refuses to tell the American People the political facts of life ... he is content being a mere cheerleader. He was permitted an ascendency of influence to balance the Hegelian dialectic. (See America's Secret Establishment by Dr. Anthony Sutton) Drudge may believe he is independent( rationalization). Drudgelike Pavlov's dog ... reacts in a predictable way that the controllers can depend on. The AP article above about Lee Raymond is devoid of valuable information. It is a half truth. The AP and Drudge fail to tell you that Lee Raymondhas membership in the Council on Foreign Relations who's members promise to keep secret the content of their meetings.Lee Raymond is also a memberRockefeller's Trilateral Commission. Both organizations are dedicated to destroying United States sovereignty. Is that not important? Apparently not for Matt Drudge. To find the truth ...one must go tomust go to such sites as WorldAffairsBrief.com; RadioLiberty.com; infowars.com and Themuckraker.net to find out how the world really works. Those sites don't have the whistle's and flash bangs. But the truth goes a long way. Drudge needs to spill the beans and stop givingus gas. Come on Matt the Country is in Crisis! Expose the Council on Foreign Relations for the treasonous organization it is. . G. Richard Arnold TheMuckraker.net ---End Message--- ---End Message---
[cia-drugs] Fwd: [SPY NEWS] Nat'l Archives vowed silence on CIA papers
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM SPONSORED LINKS United state bankruptcy court western district of texas United state life insurance United state patent United state patent search United states patent office United state flag YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---BeginMessage--- http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155AP_Archives_Secrecy.html Monday, April 17, 2006 · Last updated 8:41 p.m. PT Nat'l Archives vowed silence on CIA papers By RANDY HERSCHAFT ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER WASHINGTON -- The National Archives promised to avoid drawing unnecessary public attention to its efforts to remove declassified CIA documents from public view after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to a once-secret agreement with the spy agency. The agreement was made public Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press. It provided new details on the efforts of the nation's chief historical repository to hide the fact that U.S. intelligence was secretly trying to reclassify approximately 55,500 pages of previously public documents. Documents released last week to AP showed the Archives had agreed to refuse to disclose that the Air Force, the CIA and another intelligence agency had made the original request to remove the documents. The CIA agreement released Monday was not included in the documents made public last week. It is in the interests of both the CIA and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to avoid the kind of public notice complaints that may arise from removing from the open shelves for extended periods of time records that had been publicly available. In addition, NARA will not attribute to CIA any part of the review or the withholding of documents from this exposed collection, the agreement said. The agreement with the CIA was dated October 2001 and set the mold for a second similarly worded secret agreement with the Air Force just months later. The disclosure of the secret dealings between the archives and the spy agencies has prompted a public outcry, including from historians concerned that pieces of history were being secretly reclassified with no accountability. Archivist Allen Weinstein said he didn't learn until last Thursday that a second classified agreement had been signed by the archives, and he requested its immediate release. There can never be a classified aspect to our mission, Weinstein said, promising that future agreements won't be kept secret. Weinstein met Monday with several concerned groups to try to smooth relations. Attendees said the meeting was a good first step toward re-establishing the archives' credibility with the research community. The archivist spoke with chagrin, forthright with acknowledgment the secrecy of the activity was inappropriate. He didn't promise that records will not be removed, but if they are, NARA will provide public notice whenever it occurs and will also disclose how many records are affected, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project. Thomas Blanton, executive director for the private research group the National Security Archive, said Weinstein told the meeting he was surprised the CIA agreement didn't turn up until last week and wasn't released with the earlier documents. Archivist Weinstein was flabbergasted at the discovery of the second secret agreement. Weinstein has had the right reaction, his direct response when he found out (about the reclassification) was to place a moratorium on the program and institute an audit, Blanton said. Weinstein announced a moratorium on the reclassification last month and an audit report is expected next week from his information security oversight office. Blanton said the CIA agreement gave fodder to both sides in the debate over whether public historical documents should be removed. The Archives might view an agreement as a way to bring order to document withdrawals requested by the CIA starting as early as 1999, while others might see the National Archives aiding and abetting a covert operation to white out history and mislead researchers. --- On the Net: National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/ FAS government secrecy project: http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv/ -__ ___ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __
[cia-drugs] Reform's Knockout Act, Kept Out of the Ring
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701561_pf.html Did they realy mean to use it or was it just for show? jr Reform's Knockout Act, Kept Out of the Ring By Cindy SkrzyckiTuesday, April 18, 2006; D01 In the regulatory "reform" fervor that accompanied Republicans taking over Congress, the Congressional Review Act was supposed to be the ultimate weapon for curbing big government, the knockout punch for eliminating bad rules. But a recent review of the first 10 years of the law shows it often sits in a corner unused -- and even when unleashed, it misses more regulations than it hits. The worry was that Congress delegated too much power to federal agencies to write rules to go along with the laws it passed. The CRA was designed to be a powerful oversight tool to get rid of rules that turned out substantially different than lawmakers anticipated. The procedure allows nullification of a rule if both houses of Congress and the president disapprove of an agency action. A final rule's effective date is delayed for 60 days while Congress makes up its mind. But it has been used successfully only once, to kill a controversial ergonomics rule issued by the Clinton administration Labor Department to deal with repetitive-motion injuries. Since the law passed in 1996, 37 joint resolutions of disapproval relating to 28 rules have been introduced, according to the Government Accountability Office . Only the ergonomic rule was voted on by both houses. For example, the Senate disapproved a Federal Communications Commission rule concerning broadcast media ownership, but the House did not act on it. The Senate also went after a 2005 mad cow disease rule, but the House did not follow suit. "The expectation was that Congress, through the CRA, would again become a major player influencing agency decision-making," said Morton Rosenberg , a specialist in American public law at the Congressional Research Service . The main sponsor, former representative David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.), a champion of deregulation, envisioned the law as wresting back power from the agencies and the executive branch, which had become increasingly involved in regulatory policy and review. Former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.) took charge of the legislation in the Senate. The CRA has likely been kept out of the ring because the GOP gained control of the executive branch as well, starting in 2001, and because of the increased role the Office of Management and Budget has taken in reviewing rules under regulations czar John Graham . The House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law recently took a look at the history of the law, examining its usefulness -- or lack thereof -- and whether it needs to be changed to be more effective. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), chairman of the subcommittee, said he saw the advantages and limitation of the law. "It was a good idea but very hard to execute. We haven't set up the proper procedures to make it work," he said in an interview. Instead of eliminating rules, the law has generated a mountain of paperwork. Some 41,218 non-major rules and 610 major rules have been reported to Congress in the past decade. This means that copies of those rules had to be submitted to both houses of Congress and the GAO. John V. Sullivan , the House parliamentarian, told the subcommittee that the flow of paper has tripled the "executive communications" with Congress. There are other ways to deal with unpopular rules. Members of Congress opposed to a regulatory initiative can seek to get its funding cut. Because there is no mechanism screening which rules go to Congress for review, the result is a deluge of rules tough for congressional staffers to digest and review. There is talk of creating a joint committee to recommend rules for disapproval or an office of independent regulatory analysis. Peter Strauss , a law professor at Columbia University Law School , said he is not convinced the benefits outweigh the paper-pushing costs. He particularly dislikes the aspect of the law that prevents an agency from adopting a similar rule after Congress disapproves the original rule. "What if a Labor secretary wants a rule now? What kind of risks will you run in doing that, and how will a court interpret that?" asked Strauss, referring to the ergonomic issue. Gary Bass , executive director of OMB Watch , a public-interest group that monitors federal regulation, says there is simply no need for the review law. "If Congress was doing oversight effectively, you wouldn't need a CRA," Bass said. The congressional staffers who worked on the legislation got together recently for a CRA lunch and reunion. Some of them conceded that Congress has lacked the will to use the mechanism. "I expected it to be used more forcefully, and so did the sponsors," said Todd F. Gaziano , one of the principal drafters of the legislation and now a senior fellow
[cia-drugs] The Birth of The CIA and Flying Saucers
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8239 The Birth of The CIA and Flying Saucers Frank Warren "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth." - Carl Sagan - April 17, 2006 - part one - There's been a lot of speculation in regards to the irony of the "birth of the CIA" (formerly, The Central Intelligence Group [CIG]) in September of 1947, coinciding with all the "flying saucer (UFO) activity" beginning (publicly speaking) in June of that year; starting with Kenneth Arnold's sighting near Mt Rainier, to the "crashed discs" in the area of Roswell, New Mexico. Some have claimed, that the sole purpose in creating the CIA was to investigate the "flying saucer" (UFO) phenomenon. That, of course is not the case. CIG and then later the CIA, were born primarily out of the realization of the importance of a "post war" intelligence gathering agency, similar to it's "war time" predecessor, the "OSS," and President Truman's frustration with being "out of the intelligence loop," as "Vice-President." In addition to the difficulty it had been for him to obtain information from the various government departments, each of which seemed "walled off" from the others. At that time, by many accounts, he had been surprised to discover how much information relating to intelligence and national security matters had been "withheld" from him. The most dramatic evidence of how ill-informed he was came on his 12th day in office when "Secretary of War Henry Stimson" briefed him for the first time on the Manhattan Project (atomic bomb), about which Truman had heard only hints while serving as Vice-President and on key Senate committees. (David McCullough, Truman, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1992, pgs. 376-378.) It is interesting to note however, that both CIG and the OSS did in fact investigate UFOs individually. The OSS investigated what US pilots had nicknamed "Foo Fighters" (UFOs trailing our aircraft during World War II), fearing that these objects could be a new secret weapon from either Germany or Japan. The OSS also investigated possible sightings of German V-1 and V-2 rockets before their operational use during the war. (Jacobs, UFO Controversy, p. 33.) The Central Intelligence Group, the predecessor of the CIA, also monitored reports of "ghost rockets" in Sweden in 1946. (CIG, Intelligence Report, 9 April 1947.) The CIA's "official" position on the "investigation of UFOs" from a historical stand point is this: Although it had monitored UFO reports for at least three years, (49 to 52) CIA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) and the Office of Current Intelligence (OCI) to review the situation. (Gerald K. Haines, National Reconnaissance Office historian, Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum to DDI Robert Amory, Jr., 29 July 1952.)"OSI" and "OCI" were in the Directorate of Intelligence. Established in 1948, OSI served as the CIA's focal point for the analysis of foreign scientific and technological developments. In 1980, OSI was merged into the Office of Science and Weapons Research. The Office of Current Intelligence (OCI), established on 15 January 1951 was to provide all-source current intelligence to the President and the National Security Council. Until 1952, one could conclude, "based on these statements," that the CIA had no "direct involvement" in the investigation of "flying saucers," other then a monitoring position of other agencies, i.e., the Air Force's Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) to "collect, collate, evaluate, and distribute" within the government all information relating to such sightings, on the premise that UFOs might be real and of national security concern. (Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 156 and Quintanilla, The Investigation of UFOs, p. 97.) Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, "GRUDGE", which tried to alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a PR campaign designed to persuade the masses that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary. UFO sightings were explained as "balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, meteors, optical illusions, solar reflections," or even "large hailstones." They recommended that the project be reduced in scope because the very existence of Air Force official interest encouraged people to believe in UFOs and contributed to a "war hysteria" atmosphere. On December 27, 1949, the Air Force announced the project's termination. (Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUEBOOK Reports 1-12, National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, Washington, DC,
[cia-drugs] The Birth of The CIA and Flying Saucers II
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8266 The Birth of The CIA and Flying Saucers II Frank Warren April 18, 2006 - part two - Now this is where it gets interesting; there seems to be a contradiction in facts as "evidenced" by the "Oral History Interview with Robert B. Landry" given February 28, 1974, by, James R. Fuchs for Harry S. Truman Library: (Robert B. Landry was a member of faculty, National War College, 1946; Executive Officer to Army Air Force Chief of Staff, General Carl Spaatz, 1947; United States Air Force Aide to President Truman, 1948-53). Subject: UFOs; Date: 1948 In this time period the UFO phenomenon was getting quite a bit of play in the press, radio, TV and from miscellaneous other sources. All manner of objects and things were being seen in the sky by people, including attempted UFO landings and UFO hoverings over isolated areas. There was even a report of seeing little men with big round heads getting in and out of a UFO. Well, the President, like any other citizen, is exposed to all these goings on, too. In any case, I was called one afternoon to come to the Oval Office. The President wanted to see me. We talked about UFO reports and what might be the meaning for all these rather way?out reports of sightings, and the subject in general. The president said he hadn't give much serious thought to all these reports; but at the same time, he said, if there was any evidence of a strategic threat to the national security, the collection and evaluation of UFO data by Central Intelligence warranted more intense study and attention at the highest government level. I was directed to report quarterly to the President after consulting with Central Intelligence people, as to whether or not any UFO incidents received by them could be considered as having any strategic threatening implications at all. The report was to be made orally by me unless it was considered by intelligence to be so serious or alarming as to warrant a more detailed report in writing. During the four and one?half years in office there, all reports were made orally. Nothing of substance considered credible or threatening to the country was ever received from intelligence. Note: the Air Force had been charged by the Department of Defense with the collection and evaluation of UFO data from all sources such as the other services, the National Weather Service, and any other reliable source. It would appear, based on "that interview" that the CIA was "directly involved" in the "investigation of UFOs" as early as 1948, not 1952, as previously mentioned in the article by Gerald K. Haines. Landry concludes that "nothing of substance considered credible or threatening to the country was ever received from intelligence," however we know that's not true based on Haines' article: "a massive buildup of sightings over the United States in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration. On 19 and 20 July, radarscopes at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base tracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared."Personally I believe that Landry played no real part in any serious investigation by CIA. I think his role, was for appearance sake, unwittingly. Truman was receiving "intelligence reports" on a daily and weekly basis, since 1946, from CIG, then CIA beginning in 47. There would have been no reason for Landry to be involved. Having said that, remember that "Flying Saucers" were being seen all over the country and were making headlines coast to coast. Any "lack of response" on Truman's part, I think would have been highly unusual. So, overtly, he tasked Landry in his minor role, to report to the President as to "appease" outward appearances of official concern of the "aerial phenomenon." In conclusion, as more and more documents become "declassified," and "Ufology moves forward (albeit sometimes at a snail's pace), I think we as the public, won't be surprised to see the "ever changing" official positions of various government agencies. Moreover we've witnessed this in recent years, with the Air Force's explanation(s) of the "Roswell Incident." Fortunately, with man's advancement in personal technologies, e.g., desk top computers, camcorders, cellular phone cameras, and the internet, it's getting much harder for the government to pass off eye witness sightings of UFOs as, mass hysteria, hallucination, swamp gas, ball lightening or heat inversions. Because of that, this author feels we're coming to the inevitable, eventuality of "government disclosure" in regards to the UFO phenomenon. See Part One Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL
[cia-drugs] Ethics Lapses by Federal Judges Persist, Review Finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701296_pf.html The findings show that new laws are needed to prevent abuse, said Douglas T. Kendall, executive director of Community Rights Counsel, (hOW ABOUT ENFORCING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS NOW?) iMPEACH THE VIOLATORS.JR Ethics Lapses by Federal Judges Persist, Review FindsViolations Involve Stock Holdings And Free Trips By Joe StephensWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, April 18, 2006; A17 A number of federal judges have violated ethics rules in recent years by presiding over lawsuits while having a financial conflict. Others have failed to disclose that they traveled to resorts on expense-paid trips. Interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post identified about a dozen such ethical lapses in recent years. One category of problems involves stock holdings. In 2003, records show, federal appeals court judges issued rulings in at least seven lawsuits while they or their spouses owned stock in a company involved in the case or had other financial ties to a party in the disputes. The problem stock holdings ranged in value from a few thousand dollars to as much as $50,000. Federal law requires that judges remove themselves from any case in which they know they have any financial interest. A second set of ethical lapses involves seminars held at resorts by a Montana-based group, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE). On at least six occasions from 2002 to 2004, federal judges accepted air travel, food and lodging from the libertarian foundation but did not list the gifts on their annual disclosure reports, as required by law, documents and interviews show. The seminars dealt with economics and the environment, but also offered the judges time for fishing, hiking and horseback riding. The review found that some judges were repeat offenders: Previous investigations by The Post identified nearly identical ethical lapses involving two of the judges. It is impossible to determine just how frequently judges violate ethics laws because public records are limited. A 1998 law allows judges to black out some or all information on disclosure reports before releasing them to the public. Also, many organizations keep confidential the names of judges who accept expense-paid trips, frustrating attempts to verify disclosure reports. Ethics experts expressed surprise that such transgressions persist because court authorities reacted to earlier revelations of ethical violations with promises of reform. "It seems to be a very blatant violation of the code of judicial ethics," said Jeffrey M. Shaman, a judicial ethicist at DePaul University. Stephen Gillers, a specialist in legal ethics at New York University, said the study "goes to the heart of what a judge is understood to be." "Congress says you cannot sit [on a case] if you or your spouse owns even one share" of stock, Gillers said. "It's the law, and judges have to obey it." The findings show that new laws are needed to prevent abuse, said Douglas T. Kendall, executive director of Community Rights Counsel, a nonprofit Washington law firm that supplied The Post with documents outlining the problems. "These problems are getting worse, not better, and it's because the judiciary hasn't taken some simple steps to make them go away," Kendall said. Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge for the District of Columbia and chairman of the executive committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, which oversees ethics issues, said in a statement that the lapses, while regrettable, are the exception, not the rule. "The judiciary will continue its already widespread efforts to educate judges on their financial disclosure requirements and will develop additional tools to assist judges in identifying potential conflicts," Hogan said. Earlier this year, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation to ban privately financed trips for federal judges and make it easier for the public to identify stock conflicts. A Leahy spokeswoman said the senator raised the issue last month with the Judicial Conference. In a statement, Leahy said, "Our judges must be beyond reproach -- in appearance and otherwise."Stock Conflicts The stock conflicts found involved federal appeals judges; the study did not look at conflicts involving the much larger pool of trial-level judges. Some of the judges said they missed conflicts involving subsidiaries of companies in their portfolios. Others said they were confused by cases with multiple players or unaware of a spouse's assets. Federal law directs judges to know their financial interests so they can quickly resolve conflicts. Judge Bruce Selya of the 1st Circuit in Rhode Island held up to $15,000 in stock in the Federal National Mortgage Association in 2003 while participating in a lawsuit against the company. Selya sold the stock
