PDA

View Full Version : Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy



Qtec
02-06-2011, 04:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4. Reagan shrank the federal government.


Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.

Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.

The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan, in large part because of his buildup at the Pentagon. (It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.) Reagan also abandoned a campaign pledge to get rid of two Cabinet agencies - Energy and Education - and added a new one, Veterans Affairs. </div></div>

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2011/02/04/ST2011020403674.html?hpid=topnews)

Q........the truth will out.

LWW
02-06-2011, 05:19 AM
The POTUS cannot shrink nor enlarge the gubmint.

But ... by your tainted claim, he was doing exactly what you would have wanted done.

And yet you still hate him.

Perhaps some introspection as to why you hate so easily might be in order.

LWW

cushioncrawler
02-06-2011, 05:21 AM
Reagan -- what a prick.
mac.

LWW
02-06-2011, 08:51 AM
I love how the doublethinkers on the left complain about Reagan era "MASSIVE DEFICITS" and then cheer on the current regime for running deficits of 500%+ of those numbers.

What sane person wouldn't be dancing in the streets if the regime cut the deficit from $1,500,000,000,000.00 back to the massive deficits of $160B under Bush?

LWW

Sev
02-06-2011, 10:06 AM
The regime is attempting the sacking of America!!!

Soflasnapper
02-06-2011, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The POTUS cannot shrink nor enlarge the gubmint.

But ... by your tainted claim, he was doing exactly what you would have wanted done.

And yet you still hate him.

Perhaps some introspection as to why you hate so easily might be in order.

LWW </div></div>

Then maybe Reagan made a mistake promising to do what is impossible? Wouldn't be his first mistake.

Soflasnapper
02-06-2011, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love how the doublethinkers on the left complain about Reagan era "MASSIVE DEFICITS" and then cheer on the current regime for running deficits of 500%+ of those numbers.

What sane person wouldn't be dancing in the streets if the regime cut the deficit from $1,500,000,000,000.00 back to the massive deficits of $160B under Bush?

LWW </div></div>

We could cut the stated deficit right now by over $200 billion a year, simply by taking out the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan military expenses from the official budget accounting.

That's how Bush got his artificially reduced stated deficits-- just defined the war spending as an 'emergency' expenditure item.

Are you saying we would be best advised to use accounting tricks to falsely understate the deficit?

LWW
02-06-2011, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love how the doublethinkers on the left complain about Reagan era "MASSIVE DEFICITS" and then cheer on the current regime for running deficits of 500%+ of those numbers.

What sane person wouldn't be dancing in the streets if the regime cut the deficit from $1,500,000,000,000.00 back to the massive deficits of $160B under Bush?

LWW </div></div>

We could cut the stated deficit right now by over $200 billion a year, simply by taking out the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan military expenses from the official budget accounting.</div></div>

I question those numbers.

Even if we bring soldiers home, we still have to pay them.

LWW

LWW
02-06-2011, 03:45 PM
BTW ... what are the myths you claimed?

LWW

Qtec
02-06-2011, 09:42 PM
Al you have to do is click on the link.

Don't you dare?



R raised taxes.
TRIPLED the Nat Debt.
Increased Govt.
Negotiated with terrorists BEFORE he was Pres and after.
Sold WEAPONS to Iran and used the profits to finance his own terrorists in S America when he was explicitly told not to by Congress.



This is your hero?

Q

Soflasnapper
02-06-2011, 10:27 PM
I question those numbers.

Even if we bring soldiers home, we still have to pay them.


You misunderstood me. Leaving them there, having all the costs associated with those wars, but taking those costs off budget ('emergency spending'), would reduce the budget on the expense side right now by the total aggregate figure.

Not that we'd really be spending less. But we'd then match the accounting rules used for the prior 8 years, which you cite to claim the deficit used to be so low. Yes, lower than it REALLY WAS, BY AT LEAST HALF, because of an accounting trick.

And your point was wrong even as you understood my point incorrectly. Because we would no longer have to pay reservists and the National Guard, who would go off active duty. We would not have to pay the mercenary contractors, who total close to our troop numbers. And we wouldn't have all the logistical expenses of running a war a half-globe away, no millions of rounds of ordinance being expended from inventory requiring restocking, no costs of the newly wounded, etc.

LWW
02-07-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... what are the myths you claimed?

LWW </div></div>

OK ... here are the 5 myths about Reagan:

1 - George Bush flew in an SR-71 Blackbird to Paris on a triple top secret mission to delay the release of the Iranian hostages.

2 - Reagan era tax cuts increased the deficit.

3 - Under Reagan, education funding was slashed.

4 - Reagan was a war monger.

5 - Reagan was an appeaser.

LWW

LWW
02-07-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Al you have to do is click on the link.

Don't you dare?



R raised taxes.
TRIPLED the Nat Debt.
Increased Govt.
Negotiated with terrorists BEFORE he was Pres and after.
Sold WEAPONS to Iran and used the profits to finance his own terrorists in S America when he was explicitly told not to by Congress.



This is your hero?

Q </div></div>

Yes, those are also myths.

LWW

Qtec
02-07-2011, 04:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.</span> </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. </span></div></div>

the right link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674)

Yes, Reagan tripled the Nat Debt.....Bush only doubled it.

Q

LWW
02-07-2011, 06:17 AM
You yourself claim this to be a myth.

I must remind you ... again ... that, much to the left's chagrin, the POTUS is not a dictator.

Reagan did not increase spending by a dime ... neither did Bush II ... neither has Obama ... in all 3 cases it was congress.

Obama being the most guilty of all in that he was the only one of the three to ever be a member of congress.

LWW &lt;---Doing the thinking the far left just won't do.

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 07:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You yourself claim this to be a myth.

I must remind you ... again ... that, much to the left's chagrin, the POTUS is not a dictator.

Reagan did not increase spending by a dime ... neither did Bush II ... neither has Obama ... in all 3 cases it was congress.

Obama being the most guilty of all in that he was the only one of the three to ever be a member of congress.

LWW &lt;---Doing the thinking the far left just won't do. </div></div>

Then Reagan didn't do tax cutting, either?

Reagan didn't cause the doubling of the defense budget?

NOTHING he did, did he do, because no president can accomplish anything, it's all Congress??

C'mon, LWW. Presidents propose, Congress disposes, but how Congress acts has a lot to do with what is initially proposed BY THE PRESIDENT, and also, how he negotiates with Congress with regard to the use, or threatened use, of the veto power.

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 07:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... what are the myths you claimed?

LWW </div></div>

OK ... here are the 5 myths about Reagan:

1 - George Bush flew in an SR-71 Blackbird to Paris on a triple top secret mission to delay the release of the Iranian hostages.

2 - Reagan era tax cuts increased the deficit.

3 - Under Reagan, education funding was slashed.

4 - Reagan was a war monger.

5 - Reagan was an appeaser.

LWW </div></div>

1 - George Bush flew in an SR-71 Blackbird to Paris on a triple top secret mission to delay the release of the Iranian hostages.


If a myth, that would be a myth about BUSH, BUSH, not Reagan. And it's probably true (at least that he went there, if not on the Blackbird). For Bush was missing for several days on his official schedule in the closing stretch of a disputed election, and nobody has offered any credible explanation of where he was (even though he had a Secret Service detail who was supposed to be with him at all times). Amusingly, and tellingly, about 6 entirely contradictory versions of where he was were told by others, but all those were untrue. Finally, the October Surprise inquiry's Republican lead counsel, Lawrence Barcella, was given an alibi witness name, under condition that he not interview that person, and that he not share the name with the committee.

The presence of both Bush and then-Reagan campaign chair Bill Casey at the Paris meeting was confirmed by the head of French intelligence to his official biographer (who swore to this under oath at the October Surprise hearings), and by Soviet intelligence (whose report arrive late as the committee had already drafted their final report, so it was deep-sixed).

2 - Reagan era tax cuts increased the deficit.

EVERYBODY, including David Stockman, Reagan's budget guy at OMB, believes this is true. How are things in your separate world?

LWW
02-08-2011, 02:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You yourself claim this to be a myth.

I must remind you ... again ... that, much to the left's chagrin, the POTUS is not a dictator.

Reagan did not increase spending by a dime ... neither did Bush II ... neither has Obama ... in all 3 cases it was congress.

Obama being the most guilty of all in that he was the only one of the three to ever be a member of congress.

LWW &lt;---Doing the thinking the far left just won't do. </div></div>

Then Reagan didn't do tax cutting, either?

Reagan didn't cause the doubling of the defense budget?

NOTHING he did, did he do, because no president can accomplish anything, it's all Congress??

C'mon, LWW. Presidents propose, Congress disposes, but how Congress acts has a lot to do with what is initially proposed BY THE PRESIDENT, and also, how he negotiates with Congress with regard to the use, or threatened use, of the veto power.

</div></div>
You are so close.

No, Reagan did not cut taxes on his own.

What he did was coerce congress to do so ... a congress which also agreed to cut spending as well, and then reneged.

LWW

LWW
02-08-2011, 02:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... what are the myths you claimed?

LWW </div></div>

OK ... here are the 5 myths about Reagan:

1 - George Bush flew in an SR-71 Blackbird to Paris on a triple top secret mission to delay the release of the Iranian hostages.

2 - Reagan era tax cuts increased the deficit.

3 - Under Reagan, education funding was slashed.

4 - Reagan was a war monger.

5 - Reagan was an appeaser.

LWW </div></div>

1 - George Bush flew in an SR-71 Blackbird to Paris on a triple top secret mission to delay the release of the Iranian hostages.


If a myth, that would be a myth about BUSH, BUSH, not Reagan. And it's probably true (at least that he went there, if not on the Blackbird). </div></div>

Evidenced by?

What's that?

Nothing?

Imagine that.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 10:29 AM
Evidence is in the Congressional Record, which see.

LWW
02-08-2011, 12:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evidence is in the Congressional Record, which see. </div></div>

Then you shouldn't have any problems quoting what it says and linking to it ... but, somehow, you do.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 01:05 PM
Robert Parry reports on October Surprise (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/061710.html)

Bob Parry was the AP reporter who broke Iran-Contra about a year before it broke, although when Chairman Lee Hamilton heard the testimony of North and Co., he simply accepted their word that Parry's reporting wasn't true, so it remained unbelieved until the Hasenfus plane crash proved it some time later.

In this link, Parry reports his conversations with Larry Barcella as to the Soviet report received by the committee verifying that the October Surprise deal rumors were true.

On the rest of the site, there are another couple of articles on the October Surprise investigation, and links to the books he's written on the subject as well.

LWW
02-08-2011, 01:30 PM
That isn't what you claimed.

But ... you already knew that.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 02:54 PM
That the head of French intelligence told his official biographer that Bush and Casey were in Paris to bargain with Iranians is in the sworn testimony of that biographer to the October Surprise committee. Which is in the Congressional Record, and referenced in their official report as well.

What the committee refused to consider, the Soviet report that separately confirmed this was true, is NOT in any testimony before the committee nor in their report. It was filed away without comment, having arrived so late that their report was already drafted, and had Parry not found it digging through the archives, it would have never been known.

So I cannot point to any reference on the Soviet report but Parry's books or articles, and the record he prints of his discussion with lead committee counsel Larry Barcella.

If you're old enough, you may recall Ted Kennedy leading a gathering of Democrats in chanting, 'Where was George?' If not, then this can be googled. They were asking the exact question as to where Bush was during this 36 hour period, questioning whether he wasn't there in Paris for this alleged meeting.

That was a key matter the committee was investigating. What WAS their answer? Do you have any idea? And do you admit that their answer was exactly some alibi witness who could not be talked to nor have his(/her) name revealed?

LWW
02-08-2011, 04:37 PM
Evidence is proof ... or have you forgotten your last English lesson?

This hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited.

The last time I saw this debated was on a talking head show.

For this myth to be true here's what had to happen:

1 - George Herbert Walker Bush crosses the Atlantic at top speed in an SR-71.

2 - Crossing US soil, the Atlantic Ocean, and a large swath of France .... it miraculously creates no sonic boom to be reported by anyone.

3 - He gets in a car and catches every light to the meeting place.

4 - The meeting, including hellos and goodbyes, lasts for ubder 90 minutes.

5 - He gets back in the car and catches every light back to the nearest US airfield.

6 - He repeats the miraculous Mach 2+ sans sonic boom return flight.

7 - No log of the plane's departure. landing, return, or refueling has ever been found.

8 - No witness to the flight, in either direction, has ever came forward.

9 - And ... here's the killer ... he did it all while James Earl Carter was POTUS and was the only person who could authorize such a flight.

That one is so far out in the left field parking lot annex that even Michael Moorecheeseburgers wouldn't touch it ... probably.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 05:15 PM
So why couldn't Bush account for his whereabouts? Why were his SS protective detail prevented from testifying as to what they knew? Where was Bush during this time that nobody saw him in the country? How can that be mysterious AFTER a Congressional committee spent millions (I presume, not positive about the figure) looking into this exact question?

You're wrong that no one came forward to say they saw this. The pilot came forward.

LWW
02-08-2011, 05:33 PM
Documented by?

What's that?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 06:06 PM
Link to an 8-part series (http://www.rumormillnews.com/HARRY_MARTIN_OCTOBER_SURPRISE.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A BAC 111 aircraft, which had been reconfigured to carry a sufficient amount of fuel to travel 3,600 miles, left Andrews Air Force Base in the late afternoon of October 19, 1980. The aircraft's destination: Paris, France. The Passengers aboard the aircraft included the command pilot U.S. Navy Captain Gunther Russbacher, Richard Brenneke and Heinrick Rupp, on the flight deck; and in the cabin was William Casey, soon to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Donald Greggs, soon to be the ambassador to South Korea; and George Bush, the future Vice President and President of the United States and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. There were also Secret Service agents aboard the aircraft. </div></div>

What evidence wasn't looked for, couldn't be found, of course.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Hamilton has apparently made no attempt to locate a French intelligence memo delivered to the CIA in December 1980 that reports on Bush's visit and the contents of the meeting between American civilian and Iranian government representatives. Hamilton, further, has not attempted to check Norad's computers for the code name Maggellan and the code number 0221-001-666, nor have flight logs from any KC135 been obtained for the night of October 20, 1980, the night that an aircraft was allegedly refueled over the Atlantic, an aircraft that was reportedly carrying Bush.

Also, it is not known if Hamilton checked the sworn testimony of two Secret Service agents in a federal trial held in Portland, Oregon. The agents state under oath they cannot account for Bush's time for about 21 hours. Certainly, the wife of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart cannot confirm that she and her husband had lunch with Bush at a country club that Bush does not belong to, nor did anyone at the country club recall him being there.

Also, the transcript of the Richard Brenneke trial in Portland, Oregon, would show that Donald Gregg, now ambassador to South Korea and a person reported to be subject of a forthcoming perjury indictment by a U.S. Federal Grand Jury, lied on the stand. Gregg denied being in Paris on the dates in question, stating he was with his wife on a sunny Maryland beach that day, and even produced a photograph. Weather experts testified that the picture does not reflect the weather patterns that existed that day, which was not sunny.

Hamilton has not been able to account for the whereabouts of Bush, William Casey or Donald Gregg on those missing days in October 1980, in fact no one has, not even the men themselves. </div></div>

LWW
02-09-2011, 12:06 AM
Why did you leave out this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Testifying to this flight is Russbacher, the pilot. The Navy pilot is currently at Terminal Island, a federal prison, awaiting an appeal on a charge of misuse and misappropriation of government properties, misuse of government jets, and misuse of government purchase orders for purchase of fuel. </div></div>

from your link "RUMORMILLNEWS?"

LWW

LWW
02-09-2011, 04:16 AM
Oh, the pilot happens to be the owner of the site, and makes other claims. Among them:

- The aliens have a secret and permanent base on the Moon from which they run a breeding experiment on Earth, and employ SOUL CATCHER (http://rumormillnews.com/SHUTTLE_SHADOW_ARTICLE.htm) technology to from which they project an alien soul on the Moon into a human body on Earth. When they are finished, there is a reverse soul catcher in the great pyramid where the soul is returned to the Moon.

- CNN is conducting psyops by the way it reports election results. (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=5401)

- The CIA used mind control technology to cause the Columbine HS shootings. (http://www.rumormillnews.com/operation.htm)

- The Earth is populate by a half alien species known as the Obergons. (http://www.obergonchronicles.com/)

Quite the source you place your trust in, These guys make Michael Moorecheeseburgers appear both lucid and credible by comparison.

LWW

Qtec
02-09-2011, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did you leave out this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Testifying to this flight is Russbacher, the pilot.</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">The Passengers aboard the aircraft included the command pilot <u>U.S. Navy Captain</u> Gunther Russbacher,</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Navy pilot is currently at Terminal Island, a federal prison, awaiting an appeal on a charge of <u>misuse and misappropriation of government properties</u>,<span style="color: #990000"> Paper clips?</span> misuse of government jets, and misuse of government purchase orders for purchase of fuel. <span style="color: #990000"> Oh boy!</span></div></div>

from your link "RUMORMILLNEWS?"

LWW
</div></div>

Its obvious to a blind man that these are trumped up charges to put him under pressure and to discredit him. Baby Bush did the same thing with Wilson. Get real. You're not fooling anybody.

Q.........except yourself.... and the lap dogs.

LWW
02-09-2011, 06:36 AM
Undoubtedly the Orbegon hybrids revealed this to you ... or did CNN send it to you as part of a psyop.

Your opinion is merely icing on the cake of proof that the left on this forum will lick the spoon clean for anyone delivering the lie they wish to believe.

Tell me more of the amazing tales from "RUMORMILLNEWS" ... please.

LWW

LWW
02-09-2011, 06:42 AM
You really should read through this site ... it seems that Gunther Russbacher is a direct descendant of the start people from Sirius.

Quite well connected.

LWW

Qtec
02-09-2011, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You really should read through this site ... it seems that Gunther Russbacher is a direct descendant of the start people from Sirius.

Quite well connected.

LWW </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Lets recap your last 10 posts. </span>


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>ALL opinion</span>, <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style="color: #990000">as if that means something</span>, and no links, nothing to back up your lunatic assertions!</span>





Its pretty clear to all.
Q

LWW
02-09-2011, 06:51 AM
IT SEEMS (http://books.google.com/books?id=aAu2X9DjgIcC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Gunther+Russbacher+fraud&source=bl&ots=4cVb2GlOd-&sig=FzdegsNMu__kPb2nEYz07QnafuI&hl=en&ei=1ItSTbSUJo-u8Aastt2mCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Gunther%20Russbacher%20fraud&f=false) Gunther has quite a criminal history to explain.

Now, for those brainwashed enough to still believe this tale has the slightest chance of being true ... why on Earth would then POTUS James Earl Carter authorize such a mission, and please don't insult the forum's intelligence by implying this could have been done without the express authorization of the POTUS.

This is just silly funny to watch seemingly educated people blind their own self to the point they believe such nonsense.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 08:45 AM
Oh, the pilot happens to be the owner of the site, and makes other claims. Among them:

Well, no, that's not right, but thanks for playing our game! Tell him what he gets, Johnny Donovan.

The owner of the site is his WIDOW, his WIDOW. (But what would she know about her husband's case, right?)

The 8-parter I linked to, was authored by another person, REPRODUCED at this site, originally printed elsewhere, as it says itself. Where it was REPRINTED (there) has nothing to do with its origins or inherent credibility, except as guilt by association, a form of ad hominem fallacy of argument.

- CNN is conducting psyops by the way it reports election results.

This is merely a claim that CNN was slanting the results to favor Gore in the 2000 aftermath, which I'm certain you'd have linked to with favorable comments had it been similarly argued by Drudge or the WSJ op/ed page. It's a fact that's well known that CNN did indeed move a contingent of Army psyops guys into their newsroom (although I thought that only happened as of their Gulf War II coverage).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> - The CIA used mind control technology to cause the Columbine HS shootings.

- The Earth is populate by a half alien species known as the Obergons.

Quite the source you place your trust in, These guys make Michael Moorecheeseburgers appear both lucid and credible by comparison.</div></div>

It's a posting site, and so-called 'agents' (members of the forum) post up whatever they want. Sometimes these are posted by Rayelan (Russbacher's widow) who runs the site, but usually it's someone else. These posts are a mix of truth and fiction which varies depending on the post.

Your complaint can be put into context in this way: imagine someone who thinks things you say on this board are correct (I know, I know, who would really think that? But play along for a while...). They reproduce what you've said in this or that regard, linking to this site. Then someone else notices this site also contains the crazed musings of Q, G, H, and myself, and attacks the party posting YOUR (true?) commentary, because of all these crazed errors also posted here. Does that really mean YOU ARE WRONG? Or that it's a good argument to doubt what YOU said?

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> IT SEEMS (http://books.google.com/books?id=aAu2X9DjgIcC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Gunther+Russbacher+fraud&source=bl&ots=4cVb2GlOd-&sig=FzdegsNMu__kPb2nEYz07QnafuI&hl=en&ei=1ItSTbSUJo-u8Aastt2mCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Gunther%20Russbacher%20fraud&f=false) Gunther has quite a criminal history to explain.

Now, for those brainwashed enough to still believe this tale has the slightest chance of being true ... why on Earth would then POTUS James Earl Carter authorize such a mission, and please don't insult the forum's intelligence by implying this could have been done without the express authorization of the POTUS.

This is just silly funny to watch seemingly educated people blind their own self to the point they believe such nonsense.

LWW </div></div>

These charges actually show Russbacher was in a position TO BE ABLE TO (ALLEGEDLY)MISUSE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, because of the nature of his job description and duties working in the intel community.

The claim of the use of the SR-71 and the refueling tanker airline is that these were assets of the CIA used in this manner. Since Carter's DCI Adm. Stansfeld Turner FIRED approx. 600 CIA covert operators, who were immediately recruited into former OSS operative (and immediately thereafter himself the DCI) Bill Casey's 'October Surprise' team, it's not surprising that the Agency hated Carter and worked against his re-election chances in such a fashion.

Given compartmentalization, the need for plausible deniability, and the roguish nature of the Agency, is it really your position that the president always knows about and is required to formally approve ahead of time all covert operations?

The situation with JFK having to use the FBI and US marshals to break up the Agency's Operation Mongoose training camps around Lake Pontchetrain after they'd already been ordered to cease and desist, is one example of many of unauthorized rogue activities of the Agency.

Gayle in MD
02-09-2011, 10:28 AM
Reagan was a con artist. That was about the ONLY thing that he was actually good at.

Just watched the movie, on HBO. Very well documented. Amazing, the success the right is able to garner in their on-going cover ups, lies and mythologies, glorifications beynd belief, about all of the lying, crooked Repulicans, and their historic failures.

It seems it never ends.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
02-09-2011, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, the pilot happens to be the owner of the site, and makes other claims. Among them:

Well, no, that's not right, but thanks for playing our game! Tell him what he gets, Johnny Donovan.

The owner of the site is his WIDOW, his WIDOW. (But what would she know about her husband's case, right?) </div></div>

Oh wow!

Excuse me.

Founded by him and ran by his widow after he mysteriously disappeared during the Clinton regime for helping Bush promote the Reagan regime under the authority of the Carter regime.

Do you realize how pathetic you look when you resort to such lunatic sources?

Do you care?

Or, are you one of the Orbegon-human hybrids?

LWW

LWW
02-09-2011, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> IT SEEMS (http://books.google.com/books?id=aAu2X9DjgIcC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Gunther+Russbacher+fraud&source=bl&ots=4cVb2GlOd-&sig=FzdegsNMu__kPb2nEYz07QnafuI&hl=en&ei=1ItSTbSUJo-u8Aastt2mCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Gunther%20Russbacher%20fraud&f=false) Gunther has quite a criminal history to explain.

Now, for those brainwashed enough to still believe this tale has the slightest chance of being true ... why on Earth would then POTUS James Earl Carter authorize such a mission, and please don't insult the forum's intelligence by implying this could have been done without the express authorization of the POTUS.

This is just silly funny to watch seemingly educated people blind their own self to the point they believe such nonsense.

LWW </div></div>

These charges actually show Russbacher was in a position TO BE ABLE TO (ALLEGEDLY)MISUSE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, because of the nature of his job description and duties working in the intel community.

The claim of the use of the SR-71 and the refueling tanker airline is that these were assets of the CIA used in this manner. Since Carter's DCI Adm. Stansfeld Turner FIRED approx. 600 CIA covert operators, who were immediately recruited into former OSS operative (and immediately thereafter himself the DCI) Bill Casey's 'October Surprise' team, it's not surprising that the Agency hated Carter and worked against his re-election chances in such a fashion.

Given compartmentalization, the need for plausible deniability, and the roguish nature of the Agency, is it really your position that the president always knows about and is required to formally approve ahead of time all covert operations?

The situation with JFK having to use the FBI and US marshals to break up the Agency's Operation Mongoose training camps around Lake Pontchetrain after they'd already been ordered to cease and desist, is one example of many of unauthorized rogue activities of the Agency. </div></div>

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and nobody flies supersonic over US territory in a US plane without the OK of the POTUS.

Nobody lands a Blackbird in France without being seen.

Out of curiousity, have you ever seen a Blackbird takeoff/land?

I have.

It can't take off with a full fuel load as the tanks only seal when the aero heat causes them to expand.

So ... you would have to fill up immediately after takeoff, at least once over the ocean, again from a Euro based tanker to complete the trip, land on a military base unseen, show up on no French or US radar, repeat the process going back, make both trips on full afterburner.

Oh ... BTW ... each trip would require a full engine replacement after a transoceanic mach 3+ flight.

Oh ... and do it all without a trace.

Of course when you have Orbegon alien technology in the hands of a pilot descended from Sirian aliens, I guess it';s much simpler.

LWW

JohnnyD
02-09-2011, 03:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You really should read through this site ... it seems that Gunther Russbacher is a direct descendant of the start people from Sirius.

Quite well connected.

LWW </div></div>It is a very good read LWW,thank you.
Bless you sir.

JohnnyD
02-09-2011, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> IT SEEMS (http://books.google.com/books?id=aAu2X9DjgIcC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Gunther+Russbacher+fraud&source=bl&ots=4cVb2GlOd-&sig=FzdegsNMu__kPb2nEYz07QnafuI&hl=en&ei=1ItSTbSUJo-u8Aastt2mCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Gunther%20Russbacher%20fraud&f=false) Gunther has quite a criminal history to explain.

Now, for those brainwashed enough to still believe this tale has the slightest chance of being true ... why on Earth would then POTUS James Earl Carter authorize such a mission, and please don't insult the forum's intelligence by implying this could have been done without the express authorization of the POTUS.

This is just silly funny to watch seemingly educated people blind their own self to the point they believe such nonsense.

LWW </div></div>THEY do not seek the truth.The truth will set them free.

JohnnyD
02-09-2011, 03:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> IT SEEMS (http://books.google.com/books?id=aAu2X9DjgIcC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Gunther+Russbacher+fraud&source=bl&ots=4cVb2GlOd-&sig=FzdegsNMu__kPb2nEYz07QnafuI&hl=en&ei=1ItSTbSUJo-u8Aastt2mCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Gunther%20Russbacher%20fraud&f=false) Gunther has quite a criminal history to explain.

Now, for those brainwashed enough to still believe this tale has the slightest chance of being true ... why on Earth would then POTUS James Earl Carter authorize such a mission, and please don't insult the forum's intelligence by implying this could have been done without the express authorization of the POTUS.

This is just silly funny to watch seemingly educated people blind their own self to the point they believe such nonsense.

LWW </div></div>

These charges actually show Russbacher was in a position TO BE ABLE TO (ALLEGEDLY)MISUSE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, because of the nature of his job description and duties working in the intel community.

The claim of the use of the SR-71 and the refueling tanker airline is that these were assets of the CIA used in this manner. Since Carter's DCI Adm. Stansfeld Turner FIRED approx. 600 CIA covert operators, who were immediately recruited into former OSS operative (and immediately thereafter himself the DCI) Bill Casey's 'October Surprise' team, it's not surprising that the Agency hated Carter and worked against his re-election chances in such a fashion.

Given compartmentalization, the need for plausible deniability, and the roguish nature of the Agency, is it really your position that the president always knows about and is required to formally approve ahead of time all covert operations?

The situation with JFK having to use the FBI and US marshals to break up the Agency's Operation Mongoose training camps around Lake Pontchetrain after they'd already been ordered to cease and desist, is one example of many of unauthorized rogue activities of the Agency. </div></div>

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and nobody flies supersonic over US territory in a US plane without the OK of the POTUS.

Nobody lands a Blackbird in France without being seen.

Out of curiousity, have you ever seen a Blackbird takeoff/land?

I have.

It can't take off with a full fuel load as the tanks only seal when the aero heat causes them to expand.

So ... you would have to fill up immediately after takeoff, at least once over the ocean, again from a Euro based tanker to complete the trip, land on a military base unseen, show up on no French or US radar, repeat the process going back, make both trips on full afterburner.

Oh ... BTW ... each trip would require a full engine replacement after a transoceanic mach 3+ flight.

Oh ... and do it all without a trace.

Of course when you have Orbegon alien technology in the hands of a pilot descended from Sirian aliens, I guess it';s much simpler.

LWW </div></div>Excellent post.

LWW
02-09-2011, 03:16 PM
And finally, we have this from the reich wing nut rag known as the New York Times explaining how the democrat controlled house and senate both reviewed ... and dismissed ... this insanity:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>A bipartisan House panel has concluded that there is no merit to the persistent accusations that people associated with the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the election.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"There is no credible evidence supporting any attempt or proposal to attempt by the Reagan Presidential campaign, or persons representing or associated with the campaign to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran,"</span> the panel concluded in a summary of its report, which is to be made public on Wednesday. Congressional aides distributed the summary to news organizations today.

The summary describes the report as "the most thorough and complete investigation and analysis of the October Surprise allegations to date." More than 230 people were interviewed in several countries by 10 lawyers and six investigators working for House October Surprise Task Force.

The Reagan campaign, the report said, was fearful that President Jimmy Carter would arrange a last-minute agreement to free the 52 hostages in the final month of the election campaign, or that he would spring an "October Surprise." The phrase became a catchall term to describe the entire episode, including the accusations that some of Mr. Reagan's aides worked to delay the hostages' release to deny Mr. Carter the benefit of the publicity.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>In essence, the investigation concluded that the stories of Reagan campaign operatives working covertly with the Iranians to delay the hostages' release were spread by people whose testimony does not hold up against credible documentary evidence, including telephone, hotel and credit card records as well as raw intelligence reports.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In addition, one of the principal sources for many of the news reports, an Iranian arms dealer named Jamshid Hashemi, has retracted his story.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Mr. Hashemi, the report said, told House investigators under oath that he had no knowledge of any efforts to delay the release of the hostages.</span> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>OH MY! (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D61F3FF930A25752C0A9659582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)</span>

LWW

JohnnyD
02-09-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And finally, we have this from the reich wing nut rag known as the New York Times explaining how the democrat controlled house and senate both reviewed ... and dismissed ... this insanity:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>A bipartisan House panel has concluded that there is no merit to the persistent accusations that people associated with the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the election.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"There is no credible evidence supporting any attempt or proposal to attempt by the Reagan Presidential campaign, or persons representing or associated with the campaign to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran,"</span> the panel concluded in a summary of its report, which is to be made public on Wednesday. Congressional aides distributed the summary to news organizations today.

The summary describes the report as "the most thorough and complete investigation and analysis of the October Surprise allegations to date." More than 230 people were interviewed in several countries by 10 lawyers and six investigators working for House October Surprise Task Force.

The Reagan campaign, the report said, was fearful that President Jimmy Carter would arrange a last-minute agreement to free the 52 hostages in the final month of the election campaign, or that he would spring an "October Surprise." The phrase became a catchall term to describe the entire episode, including the accusations that some of Mr. Reagan's aides worked to delay the hostages' release to deny Mr. Carter the benefit of the publicity.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>In essence, the investigation concluded that the stories of Reagan campaign operatives working covertly with the Iranians to delay the hostages' release were spread by people whose testimony does not hold up against credible documentary evidence, including telephone, hotel and credit card records as well as raw intelligence reports.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In addition, one of the principal sources for many of the news reports, an Iranian arms dealer named Jamshid Hashemi, has retracted his story.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Mr. Hashemi, the report said, told House investigators under oath that he had no knowledge of any efforts to delay the release of the hostages.</span> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>OH MY! (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D61F3FF930A25752C0A9659582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)</span>

LWW </div></div>Indeed.

LWW
02-09-2011, 03:54 PM
Again JohnnyD ... I can lead them to knowledge, I can't make them think.

When presented with a source, the democrook party, that they would accept as an unquestioned authority if they were exonerating a democrook ... they choose to believe the stories of an ex con who is pimping a story about Obregon-human hybrids being beamed back and forth from the Great Pyramid to the Monn via a soul catcher.

And, astoundingly, they wonder why I give them no credibility.

LWW

JohnnyD
02-09-2011, 05:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again JohnnyD ... I can lead them to knowledge, I can't make them think.

When presented with a source, the democrook party, that they would accept as an unquestioned authority if they were exonerating a democrook ... they choose to believe the stories of an ex con who is pimping a story about Obregon-human hybrids being beamed back and forth from the Great Pyramid to the Monn via a soul catcher.

And, astoundingly, they wonder why I give them no credibility.

LWW </div></div>You give good leads to people in all of your discussions sir.It is up to them to follow thru on them.I have tried to have discussions with the infamous three but they want no part of the truth.Many have said they are just plain lazy i say no.They are not lazy,they are just afraid to find the truth.When a person seeks the truth they will find it.The truth will always set one free.
Please do not let this bother you as it is not you sir.People must get off their laurels and do for themselves.Continue being an inspiration for us all.
love & Peace always
Jesus loves you
Your friend
JohnnyD.

JohnnyD
02-09-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again JohnnyD ... I can lead them to knowledge, I can't make them think.

When presented with a source, the democrook party, that they would accept as an unquestioned authority if they were exonerating a democrook ... they choose to believe the stories of an ex con who is pimping a story about Obregon-human hybrids being beamed back and forth from the Great Pyramid to the Monn via a soul catcher.

And, astoundingly, they wonder why I give them no credibility.

LWW </div></div>As you have always stated "credibility must be earned".Credibility is not free one must earn it.Credibility comes with truth.The truth will set one free.

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 05:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, the pilot happens to be the owner of the site, and makes other claims. Among them:

Well, no, that's not right, but thanks for playing our game! Tell him what he gets, Johnny Donovan.

The owner of the site is his WIDOW, his WIDOW. (But what would she know about her husband's case, right?) </div></div>

Oh wow!

Excuse me.

Founded by him and ran by his widow after he mysteriously disappeared during the Clinton regime for helping Bush promote the Reagan regime under the authority of the Carter regime.

Do you realize how pathetic you look when you resort to such lunatic sources?

Do you care?

Or, are you one of the Orbegon-human hybrids?

LWW </div></div>

I used to live in Oregon, so... b nice.

Ahem.

I'll explain it to you. I was an adult from the mid-'70s onwards. I've been looking at mainstream and alternative coverage of politics, economics, etc., all that time. For over half that time, there was no internet as we know it today. I read magazines and books which are mainly not available on line. I used to hoard these, along with newspaper clipping files, but this was burdensome (when moving) and there is only so much room in a house. I maintain some of this material in storage, which I haven't looked at in 10 years or more.

So, ORIGINALLY, much of the material was in more reputable publications. Nowadays, as those older books went out of print, and magazines went out of business, you can only find them occasionally, and typically on alternative kinds of sites. I take them where I find them now, wherever that is.

While some, even much, of these things are in the Congressional Record, I haven't been motivated to learn how to use Thomas.gov, or the various governmental websites for their statistics. (I still have several editions of the Statistical Abstract of the US, and those are useful compendiums from official governmental stats and published tables, but strictly time-delimited as to their date of publishing and the fact that some stats only become available a year or more after the year they occurred in).

And really, any site that WILL now publish any of these things would be suspect to many viewers. A lot of the October Surprise information is on ConsortiumNews.com, Robert Parry's site, for example, and he has very strong journalistic credentials. But still, since he deals with such topics, it would be easy to lampoon him and his site as 'conspiracy theorists' anyway.

Yet what does the Agency do EXCEPT engage in conspiracies, as to their Operations Directorate? So, OF COURSE, any discussion of any of this will be theories about conspiracies, whatever facts can be adduced, as from the public record of federal trials, etc. Even when back in the day, the federal trials may have been covered in detail on the front page of the NY Times, and are not subject to question as to factual accuracy, NOW, discussions of those details may only be (easily) found on sites such as these you (rightly) find dodgy.

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 05:42 PM
The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.

Lee Hamilton was the guy who had the Iran/Contra affair laid out for him by Robert Parry's reporting, but when he had Ollie North and the boys in for questioning, they (falsely, we now know) denied these reports were true. His conclusion? Quoting fairly closely, he judged that 'these were honorable men,' and therefore must be telling the truth. So Iran/Contra remained denied and unknown, despite an investigation by this crack coverup Rep, for another year or more, until it broke wide open.

This is why Lee Hamilton was chosen to co-chair the 'independent 9/11 commission.' He did his coverup job there, as usual, only to LATER tell us, in the book he co-authored with fellow co-chair Tom Kean, that they KNEW they were being lied to and stonewalled, and that they had considered referring NORAD brass to the DOJ for perjury charges.

Basically, whatever Hamilton says, one should assume the opposite is true. He is provably a weasel who provably couldn't see past his nose to understand that POSSIBLY people like Ollie North might lie his ass off under oath.

Qtec
02-10-2011, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, for those brainwashed enough to still believe this tale has the slightest chance of being true ... <u>why on Earth would then POTUS James Earl Carter authorize such a mission, </u><span style='font-size: 14pt'> <span style="color: #990000">Of course he didn't. </span>and please don't insult the forum's intelligence by implying this could have been done without the express authorization of the POTUS. </span></div></div>





LMAO. The link you gave is to , 'Ascension Or Never-Ever Land!: Blue Beam Flight School By <u>Gyeorgos C. Hatonn</u>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From the Holocaust Research Mailing List, April 1996:

== The query:

Is anyone familiar with the writings of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gyeorgos C. Hatonn? </span>
Judging from the titles of some of his books, he apparently is a
fundamentalist who writes about armageddon and the end-times.
But he also wrote, according to _Books-in-Print_:

_The Trillion Dollar Lie--The Holocaust_. Vol. I: _The
Force Behind the Lie, the Cause of the Lie, and the
Prince of Deceit: The Anti-Christ_. Vol. II: _The Lies
of the "Death Camps," the Deliberate Lies of the
"Numbers": The Myth of the Six Million Swindle_. Bozeman,
MT: America West Publishers and Distributors, 1991.

== A response:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Hattonn is billed as an <u>extra-terrestrial</u></span> who beams his writings in from
outer space. He initially surfaced with a publication called the Phoenix
Liberator based in Tehachapi, Calif (The Simon Wiesenthal
Center has them all). PL had a BBS and would post Hatton's daily writings.

The leader of this organization is George Green, who promoted the idea that
his Holocaust denial came from Hattonn and other worlds. He attempted to
hold some seminars a few years ago in Montreal I believe.

A couple of years ago the organization had a split and Hattonn's writings
now eminate from a Publication called _Contact_ They can be reached at P.O.
Box 27800 Las Vegas, NV 89126.

The Editor in Chief of Contact is listed as <u>Dr. Edwin M. Young. </u>Contact also
features articles by, and ads for, material by Eustice Mullins, and a variety
of anti-govt, anti-CIA, and a booklist featuring the above titles and many more.

</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> CONTACT is a unique and inspired newspaper for concerned citizens everywhere, though it particularly focuses on the United States because of this country's special mission in the affairs of the world. That is, "As goes the United States, so goes the world."

<u>CONTACT is a vehicle for Commander Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn's most recent writings</u> on important current affairs, plus those from other enLight-ening sources, on matters critical to a responsible and informed public <span style='font-size: 14pt'>at this time of planetary transition and final days of battle between the Forces of Light and the "Evil Empire" forces of darkness.</span>

CONTACT exists to counteract the manipulating lies and clever halftruths put out (on purpose) by the regular print and broadcast media prostitutes of the Satanic Elite controllers--parasites who are in the process of economically, physically, and spritually collapsing this once great country (and actually the entire planet) down to a slave-state level of existence under their diabolical control plan called The New World Order.

The newspaper, CONTACT, began life on March 30, 1993, risen like the mythical bird, with great determination "up from the ashes" of its internationally acclaimed predessor called THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR. THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR, in turn, began life in mid-October of 1991, having evolved from an earlier newsletter called the PHOENIX JOURNAL EXPRESS, which itself came into existence as a faster way to get THE TRUTH out to you readers than was possible with the more substantial "book" format of the PHOENIX JOURNALS. Much incredible ground has been covered so far in that mission.

While the PHIENIX LIBERATOR's motto reminded all that "The Truth Will Set You Free", the CONTACT's motto, displayed prominently in the masthead takes that thought another important step forward and proclaims: "Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Make You Mad!"

The "Phoenix Project" is about those preparations needed--at body, mind and soul levels--to both understand and survive the great healing changes which are beginning to energize this beautiful little planet, now so frazzled and tortured from abuses of all kinds. We look forward, with great expectations, to the CONTACTing with all of you--a coming together that is rapidly taking place as the entire Phoenix Project "ground crew" continues to connect, solidify, and gain strength through becoming informed of THE TRUTH. Indeed, welcome aboard, friends!

<u>Dr. Edwin M. Young</u>

Former Editor-In-Chief, CONTACT </div></div>

ie a nutjob.


Some proof.

Q

LWW
02-10-2011, 03:26 AM
Excellent post.

LWW

LWW
02-10-2011, 03:28 AM
Translated this seems to be saying you search the web for nutjobs that support the story you wish to believe in and ignore everything else.

LWW

LWW
02-10-2011, 03:29 AM
Yes ... he's a nutjob, that's why he's on "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" my ill informed friend.

LWW

LWW
02-10-2011, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.</div></div>

Translated ... you don't like the message, so you attempt to discredit the messenger.

Pure Alinsky.

But ... you already knew that.

Save yourself further disgrace and fess up that you have nothing.

LWW

Stretch
02-10-2011, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.</div></div>

Translated ... you don't like the message, so you attempt to discredit the messenger.

Pure Alinsky.

But ... you already knew that.

Save yourself further disgrace and fess up that you have nothing.

LWW </div></div>

You'd know it was Alinsky becau8se that is what you do every day. Shall we just call you "Al" for short? Never be surprised when your own tactics are used against you. St.

Qtec
02-10-2011, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes ... he's a nutjob, that's why he's on "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" my ill informed friend.

LWW </div></div>

So why are you using him as a source to trash U.S. Navy Captain Gunther Russbacher ?

Q

LWW
02-10-2011, 05:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.</div></div>

Translated ... you don't like the message, so you attempt to discredit the messenger.

Pure Alinsky.

But ... you already knew that.

Save yourself further disgrace and fess up that you have nothing.

LWW </div></div>

You'd know it was Alinsky becau8se that is what you do every day. Shall we just call you "Al" for short? Never be surprised when your own tactics are used against you. St. </div></div>

I've never denied that I have been trained in Alinskism.

I was once a moonbat crazy leftist myself.

What inflames the left here is that I use Alinskyism PLUS the truth to combat the much simpler catch phrase Alinskyism used by the left across America.

LWW

LWW
02-10-2011, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes ... he's a nutjob, that's why he's on "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" my ill informed friend.

LWW </div></div>

So why are you using him as a source to trash U.S. Navy Captain Gunther Russbacher ?

Q </div></div>

That was just precious.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" was founded by Gunther Russbacher.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" is still operated by the widow of Gunther Russbacher.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" was the source for the ridiculous tale of Gunther Russbacher cited by sofanapper.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" served you a spoon full of lies and you licked the ladle clean.

The fact that you don't recognize "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" as the source of this insanity is a defacto confession that you accepted the spoon fed lies without even the most cursory investigation as to whether or not the source had any credibility.

Hoist by thine own petard.

Again.

And again.

And again.

When will you ever learn Snoopy?

LWW

Stretch
02-10-2011, 06:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.</div></div>

Translated ... you don't like the message, so you attempt to discredit the messenger.

Pure Alinsky.

But ... you already knew that.

Save yourself further disgrace and fess up that you have nothing.

LWW </div></div>

You'd know it was Alinsky becau8se that is what you do every day. Shall we just call you "Al" for short? Never be surprised when your own tactics are used against you. St. </div></div>

I've never denied that I have been trained in Alinskism.

I was once a moonbat crazy leftist myself.

What inflames the left here is that I use Alinskyism PLUS the truth to combat the much simpler catch phrase Alinskyism used by the left across America.

LWW </div></div>

I've heard you say that you were once a crazy moonbat leftist, Of course now you're just crazy.

What inflames the left? LOL you always did have a grand overestimation of yourself but oh well, this is the internet and you can pretend to be whoever you want superman.

As for useing the truth, you wouldn't know the truth if it knocked on your door and had a perfectly fitting staight jacket for you.

Anything else i can clear up for you? St.

Qtec
02-10-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that you don't recognize "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" as the source of this insanity is a defacto confession that you accepted the spoon fed lies without even the most cursory investigation as to whether or not the source had any credibility. </div></div>

I don't know if what the guy says is true or not. I was just pointing out that linking to a source on a site that you believe to be nutty proves nothing.

Forget RUMORMILLNEWS.COM [ which is it seems just a forum where anyone can post anything ] and listen to a real journalist making his case in 11 minutes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christopher Hitchens on October Surprise, Debategate and Iran-Contra - Part 1 (1991) </div></div>
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEZBz5ahHr4&feature=related)

Q

Gayle in MD
02-10-2011, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.</div></div>

Translated ... you don't like the message, so you attempt to discredit the messenger.

Pure Alinsky.

But ... you already knew that.

Save yourself further disgrace and fess up that you have nothing.

LWW </div></div>

You'd know it was Alinsky becau8se that is what you do every day. Shall we just call you "Al" for short? Never be surprised when your own tactics are used against you. St. </div></div>

I've never denied that I have been trained in Alinskism.

I was once a moonbat crazy leftist myself.

What inflames the left here is that I use Alinskyism PLUS the truth to combat the much simpler catch phrase Alinskyism used by the left across America.

LWW </div></div>

I've heard you say that you were once a crazy moonbat leftist, Of course now you're just crazy.

What inflames the left? LOL you always did have a grand overestimation of yourself but oh well, this is the internet and you can pretend to be whoever you want superman.

As for useing the truth, you wouldn't know the truth if it knocked on your door and had a perfectly fitting staight jacket for you.

Anything else i can clear up for you? St. </div></div>

Excellent Post, LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soflasnapper
02-10-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House investigation was led by the go-to coverup guy, Lee Hamilton.</div></div>

Translated ... you don't like the message, so you attempt to discredit the messenger.

Pure Alinsky.

But ... you already knew that.

Save yourself further disgrace and fess up that you have nothing.

LWW </div></div>

False.

I cited two 'investigations' Hamilton led where he totally failed to find or report out the truth. The first Iran/Contra related hearing, where he pronounced nothing to see here folks, because we know we can trust these 'honorable men' to tell the truth about their secret activities, leaving them free to continue them. Secondly, he put his name on the 9/11 commission report, attesting to its accuracy, and later revealed such concern over obvious lying by NORAD officials that he and Kean had considered referring them to Justice for perjury charges.

You think MAYBE he should have mentioned something about how ludicrous NORAD's claims were IN THE REPORT, instead of appearing to take those claims at face value and vouch for them to the American people?

Are these the actions and performance of some crack honest investigator? Or rather clear evidence that he's just what I said, a reliable go-to coverup guy?

Soflasnapper
02-10-2011, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes ... he's a nutjob, that's why he's on "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" my ill informed friend.

LWW </div></div>

So why are you using him as a source to trash U.S. Navy Captain Gunther Russbacher ?

Q </div></div>

That was just precious.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" was founded by Gunther Russbacher.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" is still operated by the widow of Gunther Russbacher.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" was the source for the ridiculous tale of Gunther Russbacher cited by sofanapper.

"RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" served you a spoon full of lies and you licked the ladle clean.

The fact that you don't recognize "RUMORMILLNEWS.COM" as the source of this insanity is a defacto confession that you accepted the spoon fed lies without even the most cursory investigation as to whether or not the source had any credibility.

Hoist by thine own petard.

Again.

And again.

And again.

When will you ever learn Snoopy?

LWW </div></div>

You're almost there.

RUSSBACHER was the source for the Russbacher claims, not RMN.com. The piece I cited from there SUMMARIZED what was the sworn testimony of Russbacher et al. to the October Surprise committee, and was first published in 8 parts elsewhere other than RMN.com. (As is clear from what I cited to).

It is a fact that these men swore to these things before Congress. It is a fact that one of them was tried for perjury in federal court related to what he swore was true before the committee. It is a fact that he was acquitted of these charges brought by the government in what should have been a slam-dunk case if the man was so discredited and obviously lying. (Even though Lee Hamilton's assessment was that the man had been totally shown a liar. It's also apparently a fact and a strange coincidence that Russbacher had extensive flight time on the Blackbird flight deck.)

What appears to have made the difference? Well, Hamilton allowed the SS detail to avoid being questioned by the committee, accepting a supervisor's report of what they supposedly knew and said instead of going to the best evidence available (their testimony). However, in the TRIAL, discovery was allowed which got those SS men on the stand. Where they admitted they could not say where Bush was during the time frame in question.

Then there was the matter of the apparent perjury in Donald Gregg's alibi evidence for how he couldn't possibly have been on that flight, using a snapshot of himself and wife by the seashore, which evidence showed couldn't have been on the days in question.

The prosecution introduced the credit card slips for charges the man on trial supposedly made in Oregon at the time he claimed he was taking part in that flight. While Hamilton thought this proved the man was lying, the JURY disagreed. How is that possible? I haven't reviewed the trial transcript, but I imagine his defense team argued that such 'evidence' was well within the power of the Agency to forge (which was undoubtedly true), and given the sensitive nature of what he was (allegedly) revealing, they'd have strong motivation to do just that.

LWW
02-10-2011, 04:50 PM
I always suspected you to be a "9-11 TROOFER" ... I had hoped I was wrong.

Have Snoopy tell you his hypothesis about how it was a controlled demolition that collapsed the buildings from the bottom up and the explosion cauing it to implode ... in relative silence ... in a manner that in no way, shape, or form resembles any controlled demo ever.

I tell you, it's a hoot.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-10-2011, 08:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always suspected you to be a "9-11 TROOFER" ... I had hoped I was wrong.

Have Snoopy tell you his hypothesis about how it was a controlled demolition that collapsed the buildings from the bottom up and the explosion cauing it to implode ... in relative silence ... in a manner that in no way, shape, or form resembles any controlled demo ever.

I tell you, it's a hoot.

LWW </div></div>

If BOTH the chairmen of the 9/11 commission PUT IN WRITING IN THEIR OWN BOOK that they were lied to and stonewalled, and that they were quite sure NORAD lied to them in baldfaced fashion (and that is all true, that they have said that in their book), then their 'definitive' account is incomplete at best, or even perhaps quite wrong, by their own admissions' implications.

Meaning the American people still to this day have no correct official account (in at least some particulars). And we should.

What can be disagreed with in that conclusion?

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:11 AM
I would ask you to document any of that ... but that whole Obregon soul catcher thingie from your last "PROOF" jas me a little skeered.

LWW

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RMN is a mixed bag. If something actually originates there, it has little credibility.</div></div>

So ... since Russbacher's story originated with RMN, his story lacks credibility?

Finally ... we agree.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-11-2011, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RMN is a mixed bag. If something actually originates there, it has little credibility.</div></div>

So ... since Russbacher's story originated with RMN, his story lacks credibility?

Finally ... we agree.

LWW </div></div>

Russbacher's story originated in his sworn testimony to the October Surprise committee, for which he was subject to the penalties of perjury if he lied.

Soflasnapper
02-11-2011, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would ask you to document any of that ... but that whole Obregon soul catcher thingie from your last "PROOF" jas me a little skeered.

LWW </div></div>

9/11 Chairmen assail NORAD lies, administration stonewalling (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14191255/ns/us_news-security/)

Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

NY Times Op/Ed
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[conclusion of op/ed]

What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission. </div></div>

LWW
02-11-2011, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RMN is a mixed bag. If something actually originates there, it has little credibility.</div></div>

So ... since Russbacher's story originated with RMN, his story lacks credibility?

Finally ... we agree.

LWW </div></div>

Russbacher's story originated in his sworn testimony to the October Surprise committee, for which he was subject to the penalties of perjury if he lied. </div></div>

Sorry ... but your Orbegone hero did not in fact testify at all before the committee.

In fact your boy was in prison from 1977 to 1983.

Now, this is where you assert that he was given weekend release to fly SR-71 Blackbirds.

PAGE #199. (http://books.google.com/books?id=7yr7TyrjF9kC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=Russbacher+house+testimony&source=bl&ots=BGygjTrnJa&sig=kG3zYE_8z7HZ3DeCObrHx81EOUo&hl=en&ei=1bZVTcfgF4mjtgeM4qyZDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russbacher%20house%20testimony&f=false)

LWW