Oswald and Synchronicity

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

An old proverb says, "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."

"The Prankster and the Conspiracy," Adam Gorightly's biography of Kerry Thornley, prompts a similar thought: "Be careful what you joke about: the joke may be on you."

A Real Criminal Conspiracy

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The power that George W. Bush and Barack Obama asserted for themselves by invoking the "terrorist" threat does suggest that 9/11 was similar in intent and result as Germany's 1933 Reichstag fire - to give more power to The State. I'm not saying that the U.S. government was behind 9/11 in the same way it is assumed the Nazis were behind the Reichstag fire. And our democratic traditions are much stronger than they were in Germany, so we weren't about to fall for claims of "dictator for life" - and probably never will. But within the American context, it is clear that Washington DC exploited the event to advance its own power.

Was there a conspiracy behind 9/11? Debatable. Was there a conspiracy post-9/11? Unquestionably.

Public Service, and the Mystery of Ted Kennedy

Friday night I was at an airport gate where there was a large screen showing Ted Kennedy's memorial service. Looking around as the gate was filling up before the flight, I noticed one thing: nobody was watching. Instead, they do what people in waiting areas usually do: they were reading, they were listening to music or playing games on portable devices, or they were staring blankly into space.

I wasn't watching either; I was reading. But I couldn't help but see and overhear some of it. And it made me think about something. Entertainment award shows like the Oscars and Emmys are often mocked - the Emmys sometimes mock themselves - for being pretentious and self-congratulatory. But those are harmless, entertaining shows. When a prominent politician dies, even opponents "from across the aisle" come to say kind words. They have to; it's part of their job to remind the rest of us that they are superior because they dedicate their lives to Public Service.

Thousands of people died the same day as did Ted Kennedy. There may have been some really bad apples among them. None of them were born already rich, and then made a career of taking from some to buy the votes of others. Few rose solely on account of their siblings's fame and accomplishments. Relatively few of them are responsible for incidents as bad as Chappaquiddick.

Who knows? Some of them may have been born into poverty, worked themselves into good incomes, and donated much of their wealth and spare time to charity and community improvement, leaving generous donations to libraries, charities, and their alma mater in their will. But they didn't "dedicate" their lives to Public Service. Of course, they couldn't afford to; they had to make a living first, something Teddy never had to do.

That said, I'm not here to dance on Ted Kennedy's grave. It just made me realize that no matter how insulated and self-absorbed celebrities may be, they don't hold a candle to national politicians and their false conception of Public Service, which is to strengthen the State at the expense of the individual. When one of them dies, that's a reason for them to pat themselves on the back for what great human beings they are.

The one thing I've always wondered about Teddy, however, was his position on the deaths of his brothers John and Robert. Were they killed by lone madmen, or were one or both of them brought down by a conspiracy.

No one in the world would have had a greater interest in these deaths than Teddy. And any one who wants to be President can't help but wonder about them too. Kennedy passed on the Presidency in 1968 as a convention-draft candidate, then again in 1972 and '76. 1972 would have been difficult with Chappaquiddick still fresh in people's minds, but there was no Democrat more prominent in '76. Teddy did not run.

Teddy did run for President once, in 1980 against a fellow Democrat, the incumbent Jimmy Carter. Weakening Carter's position in his own party - the fact that he would have to campaign for the nomination at all - hurt Carter's chances against Reagan. Why did Kennedy run the one time his chances were dimmest, and when a run would only damage his party?

Even if Teddy was not a conspiracy theorist, he must have believed some lone madman would surely make an attempt on his life, if no other reason than to win fame as the guy who got the last Presidential-candidate Kennedy brother.

That is, unless he did not believe his brothers were killed by lone madmen. Perhaps he believed that no one can possibility have the opportunity to shoot a President or candidate unless the powers-that-be permit it.

Surely he couldn't have complete faith in the Secret Service, and if he did he'd have been a fool. Ford had escaped two attempts, and in 1979 two men with the literally unbelievable names "Raymond Lee Harvey" and "Osvaldo Ortiz" were allegedly part of a plot against Carter. If Teddy did believe he would have been safe, surely the attempt on Reagan (by, coincidentally, the son of friends of the Bush family) would have put that to rest. If a "madman" could get Reagan, one could surely get Teddy. If Teddy believed the "lone madman" theory of his brothers's deaths, he must be glad he never became President. An attempt most surely would have been made.

On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy against Teddy's brothers, would he not be a target as well? Or was he essentially given "permission" to run by the powers-that-be, who knew he didn't stand a chance? Perhaps they discouraged him to run in '68, '72, and '76 but then forced him into it in 1980. Maybe "they" (whoever "they" are) even falsely promised him the Presidency as an enticement.

Perhaps Teddy lived under a constant extortion threat since 1968 - reveal what you know and you (or a loved one) will die - and carried the secrets to his grave. After all, unlike like John's and Robert's, none of Teddy's kids were killed prematurely.

This is all conspiracy speculation, of course, and I'm not taking it seriously. But a quick search led me to chapter 7 of Richard Sprague's The Taking of America 1,2,3. The argument is that Teddy was framed at Chappaquiddick - that he was knocked out and dumped in his hotel room and that Mary Jo was drugged and sent off the bridge. Teddy was then informed the next morning and ordered to make up a story that he was the driver. This accounts for his story not being all that believable.

Ever since then, Kennedy may have been, however unwillingly, more or less in the control of other people, of "them." It would drive anyone to drink.

I'm not saying I believe this theory. I just find it strange that Teddy ever put his life in jeopardy to run for President. I find it more plausible that he only ran because he believed his safety was guaranteed.

Powerless Presidents

Following up on my article Some Change, on the weakness of the Presidency.

Since 1952, the only time one party won three consecutive Presidential elections was 1980-88. George H.W. Bush as Reagan's heir is the ultimate exception that proves the rule, as Bush was the ultimate insider in Washington and the intelligence community. Aside from him, in elections with no incumbent, the less-experienced man always wins. (1968 between Nixon and Humphrey may be close, but the fact is that Nixon had been outside of Washington for eight years by that point and therefore had less current experience.)

In any case, there are other ways in which a President isn't powerful. A couple of superficial examples:

• Senators and Reps can be elected for any number of terms (and are); Presidents can not. The second terms of Presidents are often hit by scandal and political defeats. Somehow, campaigning for the approval of historians is less effective governance, in the eyes of the people, than campaigning for re-election. Thus, since 1952 we've had 5 Presidents who had full first terms Presidents re-elected, with just two defeated, whereas, except in 1988, the heir apparent to the two-term President always lost.
  
• Presidents have no privacy, being constantly recognized and with all that Secret-Service detail, even in retirement. I don't know what oaths of secrecy the Secret Service keeps, but the fact is, they are law enforcement officers. Retired Presidents can't indulge themselves the way the super-rich can, or the average member of Congress can.

On a more substantive level, I was recently made aware of a book from last year via Lew Rockwell: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. I haven't read it, but gleaning from a couple Amazon reviews it seems the thesis of the book is that, after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy really did convert from being a man of Cold War to man of peace.

I had heard that line before, and used to shrug, not knowing if that's merely what people wanted to believe or if it was really true. But a lot of people are persuaded by this book, and think JFK was done in by people ostensibly working for him.

I had already suggested this in Some Change, but from what I understand of this book (which I haven't read) it seems to strengthen my point of view.

Strengthening my position even further is JFK's interest in UFO's. Micah A.Hanks reports:

I should point out that it is already widely accepted, thanks to a variety of existing memorandums that have surfaced over the years, that Kennedy, as well as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, were both concerned that “various unknowns” (UFOs) might be mistaken for secret government craft employed by opposing nations, and could thus lead to nuclear war and jeopardize hopes of sharing a future joint space program. “Kennedy’s Memorandum to the Director of the CIA to share UFO files was relayed on to James Jesus Angleton,” Salla writes, who says that Angleton, at the time, controlled access to the nation’s most sensitive UFO files. In turn, Angleton responded to Kennedy’s memo by following a secret directive from CIA Director at the time, Allen W. Dulles, apparently designed with intent on ensuring “that under no circumstances would any U.S. President or his staff gain access to classified UFO files.”

In an earlier post, Hanks recounts the history of other Presidents and UFO's. Most significantly, then-CIA chief George H.W. Bush refused to give President Carter the UFO files, apparently following the Dulles policy. As a Michigan Congressman, Gerald Ford went to bat for constituents who were eyewitnesses of UFO's. As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan had his pilot chase one that he saw out of his airplane window, until it shot up into the heavens. Upon taking office, Bill Clinton asked Webster Hubbell to find out about UFO's and the JFK assassination, and Hubbell hit dead ends.

So that's five Presidents in the modern era with documented interest in UFO's, and even after they became President we know little more about the phenomenon than before, with at least two cases of obstruction by the head of the CIA (one of whom became President himself, along with his son).

Christopher Buckley either knew this, or understood Washington enough to formulate this, in his satirical novel Little Green Men. I won't give away the story of this entertaining read, only to say (as I remember it) that at one point the President discovers that UFO "policy" was out of his control, and he was helpless.

If it is true that there are "national security" secrets such as UFO's that even the President is not allowed to know, then it's possible - probable - that there are other areas in which they are less powerful than we imagine. As I pointed out in Some Change,

[T]he President could be told something like this:"Mr. President, if you don't follow our recommendations, there will be another 9/11, and you will be blamed for incompetence."

Is this an opinion, or a threat? Does the President dare find out?

I also wrote that I believed Presidents are unlikely to be killed off these days. But then I read what could be President Obama's death warrant, his sane, statesmanlike statement on the Iranian election. Ilana Mercer provides good comments and the text. I had very low expectations for Obama, and he's mostly lived down to them, but I still thought he'd be better than McCain, and statements like these is one of the reasons I had some shred of hope in his Presidency. But are zealots within his Adminstration, the intelligence community, and the Military-Industrial Complex happy with this? Are the neocons?

Upon reconsidering, it is clear to me that mainstream America will accept anything and believe anything that mainsteam news sources provide. So it could be that Obama is fair game for assassination - especially if it's blamed on illness. Obama's a smoker, and combined with the stress of office and basketball-playing he could die from a "heart attack" or "stroke."

(An assassination-by-bullet is certainly possible, which would be blamed on a gun-toting bigot and provide an excuse for gun control and hate speech laws. But I suspect this is unlikely, as it would be an admission of more government failure and make all Red State Americans suspicious. This would be a political "bridge too far" in this day and age. What they could do, however, is kill Obama, blame it on his "only tragic flaw" which is smoking, and get all of America to agree to smoking bans, covering up the real reason for his death, which is that he sought dialog with Iran.)

Now that I think about it, I accept that this is not only possible, I predict it. I'm making a public prediction for one reason, so that it won't happen (the same strategy I deployed last week about 70's movie remakes). Obama will die in office, I'm not sure when, but I predict where: Phoenix, Arizona.

It would be perfect in the sense of the Messiah myth, race, major historical events in America, and, well, a synchronistic "parallel" (i.e., somewhere close to the 33rd degree latitutude, between the 32nd and 34th degree latitudes)

• Phoenix is the birthplace of Barry Goldwater, who by voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act turned conservative Democrats into Republicans and re-aligned the parties.
• The state of Arizona was a famous hold-out in making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a state holiday.
• "Phoenix "is a resurrection myth, playing into the Messiah myth
• Jesus Christ came from the same 33rd parallel of Nazareth/Galilee
• The Civil War was started at Ft. Sumter, along the same latitudinal range
  
• Martin Luther King was born in this latitudinal range in Atlanta, and the Civil Rights Movement commenced with his Montogomery Bus Boycott, also in this range
  
• The range provides the birthplaces of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton (before 1952, no President had been born south of the 35th latitude; six of the last eleven Presidents have)
• The last two Presidents to die in office, FDR and JFK, died within this range
• FDR's successor, Truman, was the 33rd President. During his time Major League Baseball and the armed services were integrated. He recognized the nation of Israel, which is in this latitudinal range. The Roswell UFO mystery occurred in this range, as did the first nuclear bomb test in White Sands, New Mexico, and the Nagasaki bomb. (Hiroshima is just north of the 34th)
• Baghdad is along the 33rd parallel, and it might be said that overtaking that city led to the collapse of America as we know it.

Again, let me be clear that I DON'T WANT OBAMA TO DIE IN PHOENIX OR ANYWHERE ELSE. I'm just afraid that the more good choices he makes as President, the more likely he will die.

That's because the people who kill him won't care one way or another if Obama's considered a martyr/messiah by history. All they care about is a confrontation with Iran. These folks really are as deranged as the anti-communists in Dr. Strangelove, and to a significant degree are the same people.

Piracy, the Next Big Scare

I really don't have much more to say about it than the title. I think piracy will be the pretext , as unemployment increases, for a possible draft and invasion of Somalia.

I haven't actually read any story, only headlines, of the siege, hostage-taking, and rescue this weekend of a ship captain, I've only seen the headlines. But I know that more and more "Somailia pirate" stories are in the news.

The only magazine-length article I've read about piracy was in either The Atlantic or New Yorker some years ago, and the emphasis then was piracy in the Malaysian area.

I have no idea if piracy off Somalia is actually more serious in southeast Asian waters, or if some pretext is needed for more military intervention, this time to provide "stability" in East Africa, from Somalia to Sudan. And our President is black, so it won't be racist and critics can't raise the colonialism/imperialism charge, see?

Why conspiracies are possible

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Skeptics believe that foreign governments, terrorists, organized criminals, Catholic bishops, and greedy corporate officers are all capable of pulling off the most elaborate conspiracies. Indeed, anyone may be a conspirator -- except members of secret societies who take secret oaths, and government officials in possession of "classified" national security secrets. The former are innocent members of benign social clubs, the latter are earnest patriots. At most, in the skeptics' eyes, any attempted government conspiracy will result in a failed cover-up and political scandal.

Whereas, conspiracy theorists could point to the very fact of "national security" secrets and secret police as self-evident proof of conspiracy. Where there are secrets, there are no checks and balances of power; those with the secrets have the power. I've quoted this previously, but Paul Craig Roberts has said that the only reason for an Administration to spy on Americans without court-approved search warrants is because it has "no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif." It gives the President "power [of blackmail] over the media and opposition."

But the greatest conspiracy of all has been an open one. It's the war on freedom and prosperity. And you may be in on it.

Funny how that happens

Several months ago I read Wikipedia entries about the Warburg banking family. Paul Warburg was the architect of the Federal Reserve System, while his brother Max was an influential German banker. What I recall is that mention was made that Max was also head of the German secret services during World War I, while his brother Paul was on the Federal Reserve Board. This fact seemed more strange to me than that the King, Kaiser, and Czar were all cousins.

But now I see no mention of Max's service as top spy. The only sites mentioning it are so-called conspiracy sites, which are often impugned for inaccuracy, exaggertion, or wild speculation.

So was Max the man who gave Lenin safe passage to Russia? If this is true, why pretend that it's not? And if it isn't true, is not the conspiracy community just discrediting itself?

Or does it remain a "secret" who was in charge?

A Girl Named Stanley

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Supposedly as a young family in the late 40's, at least one person recalls working with father Stanley at a furniture store in Ponca City, Oklahoma. But nobody remembers mother Madelyn or daughter Stanley Ann.

And Stanley Ann went by "Stanley" until college, when she switched to "Ann."

There surely must be a 66 year-old in America who remembers a girl classmate named Stanley sometime between the first and seventh grades, even if just for a year. The name alone suggests she's not one to be forgotten.

If that don't put the ink in coinkidink

Maybe in the future I'll do a post about Barry Obama's unconventional upbringing and (presumed) lineage, and what his parents/grandparents may have been up to.

But for now, I'll just mention this, a false lead that turned into a strange coincidence. Barry's grandmother, who helped raise him, had the maiden name of Madelyn Lee Payne. This rang a bell. This Payne was from Kansas. I wondered if she was related to Ruth Payne, landlord to the Lee Harvey Oswald family in Dallas Texas?

Well, I had that wrong. I was thinking of Ruth Paine, whose mother-in-law, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, is a fouth cousin to John Forbes Kerry. Ruth Forbes Paine Young's own life and involvements form a rabbit hole that would probably drive a full-time conspiracy researcher insane. In any case, she founded the International Peace Academy, and among her husbands was the inventor of the helicopter who founded the School of Consciousness in Berkely. Her son Michael Paine, from her first marriage, married the Ruth Hyde Paine in question, who "harbored" the Oswalds.

Anyway, Ruth Forbes' father was named Ralph Emerson Forbes, grandson of the famed 19th-century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson.

As to the coincidence. I thought I found the connection with one fellow name "Ralph(first name) Waldo Emerson (two middle names)" in the Obama family tree.

And I was right, but on the grandfather's side. Barry's maternal grand-dad was Stanley Armor Dunham. His father was Ralph Waldo Emerson Dunham Sr.

I was tracing down the wrong Payne, but uncovered descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson. At the same time, on the other side of Barry's family, I find someone named "Ralph Waldo Emerson Dunham," though at this time I can't find evidence of a family connection and will just presume he was named for the poet out of admiration.

So I'm not saying this is anything more than a coincidence. Still, it is striking that I come across the "Ralph Waldo Emerson" in two apparently unrelated places, by mistake.

The Paranoia Minefield

Read my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It's one thing to be skeptical of official claims, it's another to automatically disbelieve everything you hear. In the latter case, every time "They" aren't forthcoming, that's proof of a cover-up, and every time They are forthcoming, they're lying. Once you've reached this point, you've entered the Kookery Minefield. All that you want to believe must be true, and anyone who disagrees is part of the Conspiracy.

"They" may well be covering up, and They may well be lying, but all the time? I don't think so. Sometimes they cover up, sometimes they lie, sometimes they're well-intentioned but misguided, sometimes they're just incompetent.

If I had a billion dollars . . .

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The Amazing Randi has for years offered $1,000,000 "to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power."

If I had a billion dollars, I'd propose a more interesting offer: all expenses paid, and $10,000,000, to any person who, using no more than tools and technology available in the 1920s-30s, can reconstruct even a portion of Coral Castle by him- or herself. Applicants would have to explain their theory and method, and the one with the best explanation will receive a good salary, all expenses paid, and ten million dollars upon successful completion within a reasonable deadline. But I'd reserve the offer only to professors and other members of the respected Scientific Community. Lone eccentrics, fired professors, and "pseudo-scientists" would be disqualified. I would, instead, give just them a $5 million-dollar prize, because they would have no reputation to lose.

And then I would dare respectable scientists and scholars to come up with a convincing theory for these ten archeological anomalies that challenge the accepted time-table of history. I'd give a prize to the best scientific/historical explanation from academics, and an equal prize to the best "alternative" theory from pseudo-scientists and supposed cranks, and release them both to the public to let the people decide which is most convincing.

Now let's say I earn my billion and attempt to follow through on these plans. Would anyone wanna bet that "men in black" will appear at my door and "persuade" me to cancel these offers?

Inference

A couple of weeks ago the local news reported than an area woman gone missing. Police and volunteers were involved in the search, and the report said that she disappeared shortly after having an argument with her ex-husband.

The report did not engage in speculation. Everything that was said was true. But the fact that the argument with the ex-husband was reported would cast strong suspicion on him.

Sure enough, a few days later the news announced that the search has been suspended, and that the police were questioning the ex-husband.

A day or two later, it was announced that the husband confessed to murdering the woman and led police to the place in the forest where he left the body.

Which just about everyone had already suspected, and what the news reporters wanted to have us to infer from the beginning.

Sometimes, however, I make the opposite inference from what the news intends. A case in point is Scott Pelley's report on 60 Minutes on last year's failed raid on South Africa's Pelindaba Nuclear Facility. Some details:

• the facility had portable, highly enriched uranium that could be used to build 12 nuclear bombs
• the employee who fought off some of the raiders wasn't even supposed to be there. He was just keeping company with his fiance, another employee, who was filling in for a parapalegic employee who had gotten drunk at the Christman party.
• the Security Office was three minutes away, but did not respond to the call for help for 24 minutes
  
• the South African government won't speculate as to who was involved or their motive
  
• ten months after the fact, the police still hadn't interviewed the primary witness.
• The U.S. has expressed concern and offered to help with security.

It seems that Pelley wants us to infer not only that this was in part an inside job (which I also believe), but that South Africa wants to cover up its own incompetence and that the it is easier than we think for TERRORISTS TO ACQUIRE ENRICHED URANIUM.

But what do I infer? That this was an undercover CIA operation, and that the South African government knows it and resents it but has its hands tied.

• If the raid was intended to be successful, then the CIA could make off with enriched uranium and suggest to the American people that Osama bin Laden has it. This would further "justify" the U.S. government's bid to acquire more power and eliminate our remaining liberties.
  
• The CIA, with unlimited resources, is more likely than someone like Osama to infiltrate the facility, or to investigate and blackmail security officers.
  
• Even if the raid is unsuccessful, it would embarrass South Africa and increase the perceived need for the U.S. to exercise greater hegemony in Africa.

I infer all this just as I inferred that the ex-husband did it. But the inference about the ex-husband makes me normal. My inference about the CIA makes me an anti-American conspiracy nut.

What To Believe?

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The mainstream or "Establishment" positions on the Constitution and economics are logically inconsistent, or at least raise serious questions. And politics and economics are things we all must make a decision about, but the Establishment seems to confuse and mislead us. What, then, is the average person to make of Evolution? Of Global Warming?

Here's why I ask. The natural sciences are also called the "hard sciences," in part because they're precisely that: hard. Difficult to understand. Intimidating to many, boring to many more. And because of this, we're expected to just believe the Establishment line: the experts know more about this than I do; I will follow their recommendations.

The Establishment can bury Constitutional interpretation in legalese and precedent. It can confuse our knowledge of economics with statistics, formulas, and jargon. But the intelligent layperson, with a relatively small amount of study, can cut through the baloney and get to the truth.

With the hard sciences, this is impossible.

Paranoia Day

Well, I'm not famous, but my book is out, and if it's destined to become a classic, tomorrow may well be the day I pass Go but not collect $200.

08-08-08. I have a right to be paranoid about this day, and also any March 3, and especially December 12, 2011.

And I'm not even the King of Scotland yet!

I wrote all about it last January.

If I do break on through to the other side tomorrow, it won't be intentional on my part. If anything, this post is a hedge against that happening. After all, I haven't even ascended to my rightful throne yet!

Causes and Cures

Two economists, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, agreed that many of the steps Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt took to end the Great Depression only made it worse. Also, that their expanded Presidential powers, new bureaucracies, and curbs on economic freedom had long-term disastrous consequences both morally and economically. Both Friedman and Rothbard promoted the downsize DC message for several decades, and remain admired by many for their work.

But the funny thing is, they disagreed about what actually caused the Great Depression in the first place. Friedman thought the Federal Reserve was too deflationary; Rothbard thought it was too inflationary and that the Fed itself should be abolished.

They disagreed about the causes, but agreed that FDR's
"cure" was worse than the disease.

Likewise, we don't have to agree on everything in order to agree that DC must be downsized. We often get mail from supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement disputing some of our assumptions, such as that we were attacked by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.

We do believe a new investigation of 9/11 should take place, because the federal government already had the tools it needed to prevent the attacks and that those who failed should be held accountable. And if an investigation reveals criminal conduct rather than mere incompetence, the guilty persons should be prosecuted.

But here's a question for 9/11 Truthers: what if there was nothing fishy about the attacks? What if it was indeed true that Islamic terrorists planned and executed the whole thing?

Would the War on Terror then be justified? Would it be justified if we had a smarter, more trustworthy President?

We at DownsizeDC.org say no, and that is the basis of our "I am not afraid" campaign. Regardless of the causes behind 9/11, the government's cure - destroying a thousand-year Western tradition of individual liberty - is worse than the terror threat itself.

We saw something similar with the War on Iraq: after-the-fact finger-pointing. The Administration claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction and had links to Al Qaeda. When both claims were demonstrated to be false, the question turned to who in the Administration lied about what. But the following points were missed:

- The Administration did make "claims" before the war, but never did provide much in the way of evidence;
- Congress had an obligation to insist upon evidence;
- Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why such evidence provided a justification for war;
- Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why an invasion, and not less extreme measures or diplomacy, was necessary;
- Congress had a Constitutional responsibility to declare war, and violated the Constitution by "delegating" that power to the President to start a war when and if he deemed it necessary.

What if U.S. troops invaded, discovered nuclear warheads, and found Saddam playing tennis with Osama bin Laden? Unfortunately, many war critics would have been silenced, and the war would have been seen as a "triumph" for Bush.

But this would have been a "post-hoc" justification for the war, where the end result excuses an illegal act. And it would have been unnecessary to invade illegally, had Bush actually provided evidence and Congress actually declared war.

We may disagree on what the "real motives" of the Administration were in invading Iraq. But whether or not their intentions were good, good intentions do not justify by-passing the Constitution.

Likewise, even if the "official account of 9/11 is true and there was no government conspiracy, and even if the Administration has only "good intentions" in keeping Americans safe, these do not justify shredding the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies and criminality within the government, we hope that you will join us in refusing to be afraid. Regardless of how it started, the War on Terror as it is presently waged must come to an end. We may disagree about causes, but we can agree to oppose government "cures."

The Ron Paul Presidency

The end of Ron Paul's bid for the Presidency raises the question:

Would he have made a great President?

I don't think so - and this is no reflection on Paul, his ideas, or his abilities.

For Paul to have a successful Presidency in this day and age, he would need at a minimum:

• 60% support in a general election
• filibuster-proof majorities in Congress
  

In other words, something we've rarely seen in modern politics, and even then only under Democratic control. But considering how different Paul's goals are from that of the neo-con and progressive wings of the Establishment, a "successful" Presidency would likely be impossible.

To make the point simple, think of this: If you believe federal employees always follow the President's orders instead of their own ideologies, interests, and agenda -- for instance, if you believe it is impossible for any CIA agent to have played any role in the JFK assassination, I respect your views. I have no quarrel with you. It is also pointless for you to read on.

On the other hand, if you are open to the idea that the CIA may have been involved in the JFK assassination, or that federal employees may follow their own agenda instead of their President, you may understand why a Paul Presidency could have been doomed.

If, once inaugurated, Paul by snapping his fingers could turn every federal employee into a Constitutionalist, he would have made a fantastic President. But it is far more likely that, in the period between Election Day and Inauguration, forces would be at work to undermine the Paul Administration. Two obvious scenarios come to mind:

• False-flag attacks blamed on Iran or other terrorists, "proving" that Paul is "soft" on the terrorists.
  
• Using their warrantless wiretapping powers, federal agents could frame senior Paul aides of illegal or embarrassing conduct.
  

But it could be other issues:

• A scare introduced into the food supply that undermines Paul's opposition to, for instance, the National Animal Identification System and other command-and-control programs.
  
• Manufacturing another corporate fraud scandal, emboldening calls in Congress for imposing yet more regulations while making Paul appear to be a free-market "extremist."
• Manufacturing a statistical upsurge in drug use and drug-related crime, while feeding the mainstream media anecdote after tragic anecdote of crime, neglect, and negligence due to drug addiction, making Paul appear soft on crime and weak on morality.
  

By sabotaging Paul's program, an environment could be created in which Paul's vetoes are always overridden, where his own legislative proposals never get out of committee, perhaps even where Congress declares a war he believes is wrong, thereby forcing him to resign.

It makes one wonder why anyone would want to be President, especially anyone who suspects there could be rogue elements within the Executive Branch and powerful people outside it who could manipulate Congress and the media. Push too many buttons, and one could face scandal after scandal, setback after setback. Or suffer the same fate as JFK.

i11umin8 us

(Revised late Thursday pm with more detailed information.)

Does anyone find it interesting that JFK was shot on 11-22, MLK on 4-4, and RFK on 6-6?

Of course, the last initial in their names is the 11th letter of the alphabet, and all died on dates divisible by 11.

If you add the corresponding numbers to the letters in their initials, you get:

JFK: J:10+ F:6 + K:11 = 27, and 2+7=9
MLK: 13+12+11 = 36, and 3+6=9
RFK: 19+6+11 = 36, and 3+6=9

The year MLK and RFK died, the Beatles released the White Album on 11-22, five years to the day after JFK was shot. It included the strangest track in the Beatles' entire catalog: "Revolution 9."

It could be said that if you want to look for patterns, you will find them. But often you don't have to look very hard.

I don't know what numbers the full names of the Kennedys and King will yield, and won't bother figuring it out, but I've toyed with some of my own information:

Adding the digits of the day of the month I was born, 26, comes to an 8.
My full birth date, including year, also comes to a 26, or 8
My Social Security number comes to a 44, or 8.
My full name comes to 215, which adds up to 8.
The signature I use on official documents comes to 152, which adds up to 8.
I was born in the eighth astrological sign.
I was born in october, and "oct" is an old root word for 8.
The letters of my first name come to a total that is divisible by 8.
The letters of my nickname come to a total that is divisible by 8.
My full name has 16 letters.
The address number of the house I grew up in adds up to an 8. (applies to some, but not all of my siblings)
Wilson is the 8th most common surname (applies to all Wilsons, so it's a stretch).
Three of the most life-changing years so far in my life each add up to 8, though that's open to interpretation.

The point is, I didn't go out looking for 8s. These are most of the things that I thought of and tried. It doesn't apply everywhere. My nickname is a 5. JLW comes to a 9. (So if I become known by that and become a political/social leader and get assassinated, I'm in the pattern.)

When I initial something, however, I use JW, and while that is not reduced to 8, the sum comes to 33. This is a significant number in occultism and conspiracy literature, most notably, the idea that the world is run by a conspiracy of 33rd Degree Freemasons. In France, the Freemasons were Jacobins, credited with instigating the French Revolution. My first and middle names, taken together, literally means "one who supplants the King," with my middle name being French for "the King." And the numbers of "James" and "Leroy" are 3 and 3, so "James Leroy" is "33." "Wilson" comes to 92, which comes to 11, and ultimately, 2, so my full name is either 332, or 3311. But before becoming 3's, both James and Leroy are 12's, so my name might be 121211. I don't think you'll have to think hard to realize that 12 has some significance in time measurement, astrology, and religion. If you want to discount the "33," you'll get "1212" instead. 2012, is a crucial date in the Mayan calendar, the end of the world or something.

Anyway, back to the Jacobins. James is a variant name of Jacob, dating back to ancient Hebrew. Jacob, of course, was the patriarch of the 12 tribes.

According to Jim Marrs, the French Jacobins can be traced back to the British Jacobites, who sought to restore the Scottish Stuart monarchy line in Britain, whose last Stuart King - James II - had established the Scottish rite of Freemasonry. My first name, last name, and ancestry are Scottish. So my name evokes both "Jacobins supplanting the French King" and "James the (rightful?) King."

Both my astrological sign Scorpio and my "number," 8, indicate I'd have a personality with some fascination with this stuff. Since I'm fascinated, I'm open to the possibility that my interest in politics was literally written in my name. But if my brown wavy hair and orange beard (I don't have one, but I did for a few months several years ago) say anything, I am part of the Wilsons of the Gunn clan in Scotland, and being the third-born of a fifth-born of a last-born to dirt-poor pioneers, I doubt I have much significance in that line. If I recall, however, there is a Stuart in the ancestry somewhere. In the Bible, the power or inheritance usually goes to second-borns, last-borns, or descendants of bastard or mixed stock. If my claim to the Scottish throne can be established, I think I'd make a decent king. My monarchy in law would be very close to anarchy in practice. (Anarchy in the good, spontaneous-order, libertarian sense, not the chaotic, violent sense that should be described for what it is, chaos.)

But all I know is that if I ever become famous, I'll be somewhat paranoid whenever March 3 (3-3) or August 8 (8-8) rolls around. Of course, if I do become famous and die under anything remotely resembling mysterious circumstances, it won't matter what date I die; someone will find a connection.

And they'll probably be right; I do believe everything is connected together on one level or another. My parents are clueless about this information, their selection of my name had more to do with an Apostle and a family friend and not historical claims, let alone irony, so it's either completely coincidental, or there is some synchronicity going on. Or, we find the patterns we want to find. I don't know about you, but the patterns I found about myself are pretty cool.

Ideologues and Mind Control

Over 2000 books have been written on the JFK assassination. I don't know how many national television specials have also been made, but my guess is that a small minority of the books have the "Oswald Acted Alone" thesis, while almost 100% of the tv specials conclude the same. Another one for the American Experience was on tonight on a local PBS station.

Here's why I'm an agnostic on this and other conspiracy theories for other tragic events: I do not know anything about "black ops" hypnosis and mind control. I could see Oswald acting alone, or I could see him hypnotized to think he's acting alone - as tonight's special reminds us, he had always acted alone, all his life. If a conspiracy, the conspirators would have had to produce a fall guy who wouldn't name names, i.e., who wouldn't know he was part of a broad conspiracy - such as a hypnotized or mind-controlled ideologue.

(Makes me wonder about Timothy McVeigh, but anyway...)

Wouldn't a conspirator have come clean by now? Well, Chuck Harrelson confessed at one point, then recanted. Who knows how many others come forward, but see their stories isolated and forgotten, or discredited by "others who were there at the scene."

And frankly, if you felt fully justified in what you were doing, and if, perhaps, you were hypnotized yourself, it's likely you'd never confess; you might not even remember having participated in a conspiracy. Again, I say this because I don't know how anything about mind-control techniques. It at least sounds plausible to me.

Furthermore, conspiracies are plausible in part because just about anyone could be tempted to be part of one. For instance, you are convinced there is an "Islamo-fascist threat," and you perceive one candidate as "strong" and the other "weak" on this vital issue, wouldn't you be tempted to rig the election to keep your nation safe? From certain perspectives, that would be the patriotic thing to do. It is not that hard for any of us to break the law or "undermine democracy" if we believe we are serving some higher or more urgent purpose.

Or if you had the opportunity to engage in shenanigans that are the equivalent of "pressing the button" to achieve the kind of society you want, wouldn't you take it? Is not liberty more important than democracy for libertarians? Is not social justice and equality more important than democracy for liberals? Is not morality and safety more important than democracy for conservatives?

So, if a league of CIA agents genuinely believe their President is an impediment in their fight against communism, what would be better than getting a communist to pull the trigger in this President's assassination? (Or, be one of two or three gunmen, but take the entire blame?)

At trial, Oswald could then be framed as a Cuban spy, because then war on Castro would be justified, and the goals of the Bay of Pigs invaders would be complete. (In this scenario, Jack Ruby would have been the one who "acted alone." There are, of course, other possibilities.)

Who knows. Who knows if there was a conspiracy, and who knows what its purpose was, and who was involved (aside from all those recognizable CIA agents in Dallas such as Edward Lansdale and E. Howard Hunt.) But to the ideologue, the ends justify the means, and that is why the motivation to create or join conspiracies is plausible. And the more we can add hypnosis/mind control to the mix, the more conspiracies seem possible.

Circumstantial Plausiblity

A friend is reading Mein Kampf and has sent me some of his observations on it. One point he raises is that wild assertions (such as Jewish conspiracies) are easy to make but difficult to disprove. But if they are not refuted, they slowly gain in popularity. So the problem is, do we "dignify" the insane assertion by taking the time to refute it? Or is our silence a sign of consent or agreement?

In the 1920's and 30's, the Germans who knew better than to believe Hitler's crap didn't take the time to discredit it. And this is understandable; to them it already discredited itself. To "learn from history" in this case, then, is to not sit idly by as wackos proclaim their theories; we should take the time to refute them so that nobody believes them.

But wild allegations are difficult to disprove. I think the reason is because of what I call "circumstantial plausibility." Rich and powerful people make friends with other rich and powerful people; in their private conversations they might be discussing how to manipulate the stock market or create political turmoil in some foreign country. How do we know that they're not? If two such individuals both profit from a particular crisis, and if it is known that they were acquainted with each other, some people jump to the conclusion that they orchestrated the crisis.

This is akin to assuming that if something isn't known, it is being kept secret, or if something isn't found, it is being hidden. How can these be disproved? How does one prove that nobody knows? How does one prove that something doesn't exist?

I don't know the answer. Ultimately, finding an explanation of the unknown is a matter of belief. The best any of us can do is believe the most reasonable explanation, until new evidence from the paper trail, the money trail, reliable witnesses, or statistical probability convince us otherwise.

Distrust Authority

Is there any benefit to believe in conspiracy theories? I think it depends on what one believes about the nature of the conspiracy.

One kind of conspiracy is held in common between right-wing patriotists and left-wing progressives, different in content but similar in form in that they glorify what they believe to be American ideals. The story generally goes that there was once something great and noble, but then some heretics conspired to take control and defile it, and now it is up to us to expose this cabal, defeat it, and restore the thing back to its former glory: "We had a Constitution that worked fine until [the corporate interests, the Jews, the Illuminati, or all three] took power and steered the country to [a centralized kleptocracy, secularism at home and a Zionist foreign policy, World Government, or all three]. We must expose these frauds and return our country to [the "original intent" of the Constitution, our "Christian heritage," or whenever it was you believed "representative democracy" actually functioned in our land]."

Then there's another kind of "conspiracy theory" I was recently reminded of when I discovered George Cordell's Hawaii Observer. To paraphrase some of the ideas there: the powerful invent bogeyman and crises for the purpose of raising revenue for themselves; ideology exists to justify murder and plunder; government was a swindle from the very beginning, the U.S. government is nothing but an organized crime outfit. Hawaii Observer does perpetuate "conspiracy" theories, about how heavily governments are secretly involved in the drug trade (and who, deep down, doesn't suspect it?), and how Rockefeller companies are the main beneficiaries of the War on Iraq. But these are placed in context of the over-arching theme, that this is how it's been for thousands of years.

One form of conspiracy theory wishes to replace today's government with a romanticized and idealized form of government that supposedly existed sometime in the past. At some point in American history, Americans were free and happy because of its government, and we must somehow get back to that point. The second form of conspiracy proclaims that "every danger you might worry about - poverty, drugs, crime, war, terror, the Devil himself - is possibly fake," that "one cannot build a just society and economy with a coercive power structure" and "what we need ... is to create a free, open operating system for society."

The first view may assume that 9/11 was to some extent an "inside job," and treat this as a great betrayal. The second view may also believe that American government officials were to some extent involved in 9/11, but view that this is par for the course. If the world's governments including our own are nothing but criminal organizations, this shouldn't be particularly distressing.

With the second view, "America" ceases to be a religion, the "Constitution" ceases to be the Bible, and lower-case republican and democratic theorists, historians, and economists cease to write its theology. As Brian says, "You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for yourselves! You're ALL individuals!"

That's what I like about conspiracy theory, if understood from this second sense. It reminds us that there is no "there" there, no "ideal" to be restored. I understand that there are inevitable disagreements between individuals - particularly from claims of private property in land - and I see the need for law, adjudication, and even some form of government to address this problem of land. But this entails government settling actual disputes.That's a far cry from inventing bogeymen to frighten the people into giving up their freedom and property for a false sense of security, or from asking the people to replace their faith in their God with a faith in a particular system of government. The good that comes from conspiracy theory is a mistrust of all government, of all authority. I find conspiracy theories plausible to the extent they advance my mistrust of all government and all authority; when they instead tout reasons why one authoritarian was "unjustly" replaced by another, I shrug, laugh, and move on.

Does this cynical view square with my support for and hope in Ron Paul for President, even though idealistic patriotists also embrace him? I believe the answer is yes, because he is the biggest threat to pro-war, pro-police state interests we have, and more importantly, he is a good barometer of "people power." The more people support Ron Paul, the more they are telling the Powers-That-Be that "I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore." To the extent our elections are still free, this still means a lot.

We are not going to achieve a criminal-free society. We won't even achieve a criminal-free government. But we can promote leaders who vow to take us in a better direction. If we succeed in getting the "right people" such as Ron Paul elected, great. But even if we don't succeed in that, we still win to the extent we persuade more and more people to distrust authority and value their own freedom. If Ron Paul isn't the "ideal" person to lead this cause, remember that we live in the real world, not some utopia in the sky.