Mark Crispin Miller Nails the JFK Cover-up and Casts Light on 9/11

From: Off-Guardian

JFK 55 years on: Casting Light on 9/11 & Other 21st Century Crimes

Graeme MacQueen

1962: US statesman John F Kennedy, 35th president of the USA, making a speech. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

Fifty-five years ago, on November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Although there has been a great deal written about this event over the years, I want to draw attention to one exceptionally important article, originally delivered as a talk on November 20, 1998. Vincent Salandria gave this talk in Dallas at the invitation of the Coalition on Political Assassinations. (See Sources.)

Salandria had been a high school teacher at the time of the assassination (he later became a lawyer) and was one of the first people in the US to write essays expressing dissent from the government narrative of lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, maverick leftist.

In his 1998 talk Salandria went through over a dozen of the famous obstacles to the government story—the grassy knoll witnesses, the “magic bullet,” the testimony of the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and so on—but he did not let himself get sidetracked into detailed debates on any of these. By 1998 he had already seen, and participated in, 35 years of such debates. He had long ago concluded that, “the national security state at the very highest level of its power killed President John F. Kennedy for his efforts at seeking to develop a modus vivendi with the Soviets and with socialist Cuba.”

In 1998 he felt it was time to warn researchers about the danger of wasting time in “false debates,” where the essential facts had clearly been established and the wrangling served only the purposes of the assassins. Rather than repeat the debates, Salandria decided in 1998 to outline his basic approach. I will call this the Salandria Approach. I draw attention to it because I believe it helps us find our feet when we tackle not only the JFK killing but many of the killings in the 21st century’s War on Terror.

Here are Salandria’s words:

I began to sift through the myriad facts regarding the assassination which our government and the US media offered us. What I did was to examine the data in a different fashion from the approach adopted by our news media. I chose to assess how an innocent civilian-controlled US government would have reacted to those data. I also envisioned how a guilty US national security state which may have gained control of and may have become semi-autonomous to the civilian US governmental structure would have reacted to the data of the assassination.”

 He adds that,

only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions.”

Let us take two cases from Salandria’s list of over one dozen in order to see what he was getting at.

THE GRASSY KNOLL

Dozens of witnesses thought there were shots from an extended grassy rise, containing several structures, situated west of the famous Texas School Book Depository Building. Salandria, refusing to get drawn into the familiar debate, says:

Let us assume arguendo [for the sake of argument] that all of the eyewitnesses who had concluded that shots were fired from the grassy knoll were dead wrong. But an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched single assassin theory as fact.”

Note that Salandria’s emphasis is not on the details of the grassy knoll discussion but on the method the government followed in its investigation. And he is right, both about the immediate claim that Oswald acted alone— presented, as he explains, by a government representative on November 22 itself—and about the identical statement presented later by the Warren Commission.

In both cases the claim flew in the face of the eyewitness evidence. For example, despite the fact that there are references to dozens of witnesses to shots from the grassy knoll in the 26 volumes of evidence appended to the Warren Report, the Commission itself displayed little interest in them. And when the Commission dismissed every single one of the grassy knoll witnesses to protect its lone gunman theory it did so without bothering to make a sustained argument.

It chose instead to play a credibility game. It pronounced:

No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building” Warren Report, p. 61

In other words, the Commission decided to gather together into one great agglomeration the credibility of its seven well dressed and high-ranking white men associated with government and use this to crush the credibility of the “good citizens” who were present in the Plaza and witnessed, with their senses, the unfolding of events.

It was a breathtaking move. But in what way could it be said to characterize an innocent government? How could any serious investigator pretend to solve an evidential problem by playing a credibility game? Standard practice in a homicide investigation would be to find all witnesses, to interview them, and to record their statements impartially, making sure to ask each one of them where they thought the shots came from and why they reached their conclusion. How would the opinions of congressmen, spies and the like possibly be relevant to the case when these gentlemen declined to offer adequate counter-evidence or to give a serious argument to support their peculiar conclusion?

Readers who have never had the opportunity to see and hear for themselves the good citizens in question may benefit from Mark Lane’s documentary:

Well, where, in such a case, does the Salandria Approach lead us? We have no choice but to conclude that the Warren Commission’s investigation was not what we would expect from “an innocent civilian-controlled US government.”

It was more characteristic of “a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins.” There was a predetermined perpetrator and an insistence on the guilt of this perpetrator, while evidence suggestive of a conspiracy was systematically ignored, distorted or suppressed.

Suppose we were to apply the Salandria Approach to events of the 21st century–to the eyewitnesses at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, for example? We have over 150 witnesses who reported that they saw, heard or felt explosions at the time of the beginning of destruction of the Twin Towers. (See Sources for assertions in this and the following paragraph.)

Their testimony constitutes very significant support for the theory that the Trade Center was blown up and did not undergo collapse from structural failure caused by airplane collision. We are not simply talking about loud sounds here. We are talking about sounds that experienced firefighters suspected were caused by bombs. We are talking about patterns of explosions seen pulverizing the buildings. We are talking, in some cases, about witnesses who say these explosions threw them through the air. Now, avoiding the debates about the details of this testimony, let us follow Salandria and ask: What did the government’s 9/11 Commission do with these eyewitness accounts, all of which were in its possession?

The answer is that it called for no comprehensive search for eyewitnesses (neither did the FBI, as far as I can discover), nor did it have such witnesses asked the appropriate questions. It devoted to these witnesses a single line in the roughly 585 pages of its Report. And that single line is both dismissive and extremely misleading.

What about the National Institute of Standards and Technology, assigned by government the task of looking in detail at the destruction of the Trade Center and sorting out the reasons for its destruction? In the thousands of pages of its reports on the Twin Towers we find not a single mention of the explosion witnesses. Despite NIST’s pride in its interviewing techniques, and despite its access to all the relevant information, it somehow missed over 150 witnesses. It made no attempt to find them, to sort out their testimony, or to discover how their words might illumine the mystery of the so-called “collapses.”

We should recall that the efforts of the 9/11 Commission and NIST were mere follow-through. A strenuous attempt to promote the structural failure hypothesis was begun on the very day of September 11, 2001, in the absence of serious evidence in its favour and in bold contradiction to what large numbers of witnesses were saying. (Sources)

snip>

Craig Loves Ayn - A Love Story Gone Wrong

Written by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster Date: 04-28-2011 

The film opening for Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged,” opened recently. My son, Arthur, said he wanted to see it, so we went. Dozens of people I know had waited for decades for this movie to make it to the theater. As reported, the characters were flat. Attempts to draw parallels between the predictions made by Rand in her book of 1958 to what we face today fail both badly and sadly. I was strongly reminded of a conversation I had, years ago, with my former husband about fantasies that don't work. I would bet Craig was there in the theater on opening night, despite what I am about to tell you.

Craig and I were married and living in Santa Barbara when, one night, Craig asked me in a puzzled voice, “I can't make my fantasy come out the way I want.” I looked up from the book I was reading. “What?”

Fantasies are part of our inner lives and generally it is a good thing when fantasies remain private. From the look on Craig's face it was clear he was sincerely puzzled, unable to understand his failure to marshal his not inconsiderable intellect in this task of pure unreality. But, according to what he told me that evening, this was not for lack of trying. His face was crumpled and red. He looked like a man in the throes of an arduous task or badly constipated.

You could see he was hesitating to tell me the details. I waited, attentive, dispassionate.

As expected, Craig's need for advice overcame any hesitancy to share the details. Others who know Craig have noted his disconnect from what is generally normal. I sensed this would be one such occasion.

“It starts out fine. I'm in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, looking out on New York. Ayn Rand is standing there with me as we gaze out on the city, waiting for the lights to go out.”

If you are not familiar with Rand's work you need to know the final denouement of the book, “Atlas Shrugged” includes the moment when the lights of New York wink out because her Nietzscheian super-heroes have turned their backs on the world, thus canceling all electric power. Craig fancies himself one of the supermen who gather in Galt's Gulch, awaiting the awareness of how essential they are to the world to dawn in those Left Behind.

Craig went on, “I am holding Ayn in my arms. She is saying, “No, no, I cannot be unfaithful to Frank and Nathaniel.”

Frank is Frank O'Connor, Rand's long-suffering husband. Nathaniel is Nathaniel Branden, Rand's lover, 25 years her junior. Rand inflicted her fantasy life liberally on others, many of them very close to her. Rand lived out her fantasies and coerced those nearest and dearest to her to put up with these fantasies, justifying them as the rational, necessary, logic of her ideas and values. Frank had to leave the couple's apartment as Branden was arriving to help Rand with her fantasy life.

For details read: Judgment Day by Nathaniel Branden and The Passion of Ayn Randby Barbara Branden.

By his own report, Craig, the only person who ever stalked Ayn Rand, was obsessed with Rand and jealous of Branden. Craig sent Rand copies of his papers on math, which Rand could not understand and so appreciate. Craig sat for hours in the lobby of her apartment building, dressed in a newly purchased Brooks Brothers suit, his finger nails manicured, hair cut, shoes shined, holding orchids for Ayn for quite some time. He also made himself known to her in ways which resulted in a nasty stay-away letter from her attorney.

Craig's fantasy continued. “I pulled out two documents to show Ayn. That day I had paid Frank and Nathaniel to end their relationships with her. I handed Ayn quit-claim deeds from Frank and Nathaniel, who, I told her, were even then leaving the city.”

What perplexed Craig, because he could not change it to conform with his fantasy, was Ayn decking him with a fast right and left punch, just as he tries to embrace her.

Craig looked to me for understanding.

I pointed out his fantasy was diametrically opposed to the reality he had experienced. Rand loathed him and adamantly refused to have anything to do with him, by his own report. Perhaps this failure was the rational reaction of his mind when asked to distort reality. Craig paused, considering. Clearly, he did not like the answer provided.

I don't know if he ever managed to get a different outcome with this particular fantasy, the subject then being dropped.

Emotionally normal people move beyond the ideas of Ayn Rand by examining them in detail and understanding the source of the attraction. But many retain a fondness, in the same category as enjoyed earlier with fairy tales.

When Rand was first writing Nietzsche's ideas had more traction, as less was known about psychopathy and the neurobiology of the human mind. People in their late teens and early twenties often go through a period of playing with the idea they are 'special' in this way. Most recover.

The assertion some group is superior, possessing a right to live by different standards, expressed itself in two other venues in America during the 20th Century. The first was through the work of Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, whose work in what he called 'public relations,' also known as propaganda. This became the tool which remade American culture at exactly the time Rand what it meant to be an American. The second came out of the thinking of Leo Strauss, where those 'destined to rule' were empowered to take whatever action needed to take control. This is the explicit tool used by the Neoconservatives.

Ideas, theology and philosophy, are early human tools used to create a common set of values and expectations, allowing humanity to function in a world of human design, beyond the hard-wiring of the human brain. But going beyond that small town took humanity onto dangerous ground.

Humanity originates from a human culture of small groups where it was possible for all individuals to know each other well and so reliably predict the behavior of others. Think of this as visual credit-rating, an assessment of reliability, honesty, and other values, which aid survival and provide community safety-nets. The drama of superpersonhood had not yet reared its head. The problem of psychopathy, those whose neurological make up is distorted and who have no conscience, was not yet understood. Many now believe the recurring presence of this haunting icon, the devil, refers to those we now know as psychopaths who do, routinely, refer to themselves as outside the ordinary rules, as supermen.

Rand, herself, by reports from those who knew her, was inclined to ignore reciprocal social obligations, citing various justifications of ignoring the subject. She asserted different rules for her supermen than for ordinary humanity, therefore rejected the Lockean ideas which underlie the foundations of American culture.

The hero of her first work of fiction, The Little Street, was drawn from the example of the most infamous cold-blooded murderer of 1928. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

William Hickman, Ayn's chosen model, kidnapped a 12 year old girl, held her for ransom and then murdered her. After chopping her body into parts he extorted money from her frantic father and shoved her body out of the car to be found, the girl's dead eyes sewn open.

Rand was explicitly aware of the circumstances when she chose Hickman.

The network of social obligations is the basis of all human culture, the original and proven-to-work, strategy which allowed humanity to survive and prosper. Robust social networks arise organically, as discussed in Hayek's, The Fatal Conceit. The corporate business-model, profiting in any way possible, had nothing to do with human survival. Instead, it has brought us to the brink of annihilation.

America was founded on the ideas of equality for all people, an affirmation of the natural rights philosophy of John Locke, expressed so eloquently in our Declaration of Independence. This idea worked with the Christian beliefs which brought the Puritans and Quakers to a new world where all people would be equal in law, as they are in the eyes of Christ and in nature.

Three times in the 20th Century ideas have been used to convert us to a view which deifies corporations. This line of reasoning has proven potently valuable to the entire Military Industrial Complex, in recent years, especially the Brothers Koch. The first people who should have noticed what they proposed was not free market were the same people who lined up to support them, framed as they were in the Rand Fairy Tale. This is the reason Alan Greenspan was named Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The corporates knew we would not attack 'one of our own.'

Ideas which consistently create disaster, personal, national and global, should be deleted.  End the Fed.  Enforce accountability by demanding restitution for profits made through fraud. Accept the truth, no matter how many fantasies have to die.

This article is dedicated to Nathaniel Branden, who recognized Craig Franklin as bizarre while we were in therapy with him, and to Craig himself, who, still trying to achieve his fantasy, illustrated in one story line, how psychopaths impact our world, from the personal to the hidden reaches of corporate profit.

John Fund and the Brown Badge of Courage

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

Somehow this disappeared from this site and others, for instance American Politics Journal.  Tell us why, Gene!

       Cast your minds back to the primary season of 2000.  John McCain had begun a ground swell in the Granite State with a campaign that allowed American voters to contrast a real war hero willing to meet your eye and listen.  No matter what, McCain took no crap from anyone, especially a service-dodger like George W. Bush, the Son of Monied Oil. 

            McCain is not a man without faults, but a lack of courage is not among them. 

            Senator McCain was cleaning the floor with the Bush Baby when suddenly a rumor started to float across the panorama of politics covertly maligning the former POW. 

            John McCain, the rumor says, has an illegitimate love child who is half black.  His campaign screeches to a halt; the rumor, coming at a critical time, causes irreparable damage to his campaign, hitting him at the ballot box like a nuclear explosion.

                 John Fund In Hiding

There was no truth to the rumor.  McCain and his wife have an adopted child who is of mixed heritage but neither of them is biologically related to the child they took into their home and hearts. 

            Now that we know and understand the tactics employed by the NeoCons we can make some very educated judgments about where the rumor originated.  It has the marks of a Rove generated creative writing project.  The  rumor was circulated by Political Operative Prime for the Bushavicks, John Fund.  Placing such rumors is one of his most important functions for Bush and Associates. 

            Just as the rumor was washing away the Senator's chances for the nomination McCain discovered the identity of the man responsible.  At that moment in time John McCain was in New York.

            Not a man to leave to others what a real man does for himself, the Senator stormed into the officers of the Wall Street Journal to confront the pestilential little NeoCon prick who had demeaned his honor and his family.

            John Fund, a non-veteran of anything but the war on Americans being waged so openly now by the Bush Administration, showed all of the courage you could expect of someone like him.  Hearing the roars from the reception area he scampered into his office and hid under his desk. 

            Remember that.  This is an insight that serves to inform us on the nature of those in charge of our Nation's destiny.   It is very likely Bush Jr.  would have beaten John to the hidey hole, if it had been him.

            John Fund is a distinguished recipient of the Brown Badge of Courage.  The award ceremony took place in the Wall Street Journal Men's Room soon after his close  encounter with war hero, John McCain, memorialized above.

Sex, Lies, and the Tape. The John Fund Story

Note:  The story about John Fund has some inaccuracies.  The notes in italics are mine, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster.  The author, John Connolly, has since moved on and written a book  Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy - The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein Oct 10, 2016  by James Patterson and John Connolly  

I was struck at how much that story has in common with those who cooperated with John and the story eventually revealed by the article below.  "Filthy Rich", the book that finally began the downfall of Jeffrey Epstein, includes John as an author.  It is an excellent expose of the vicious habits of Epstein and those working with him to make a profit from the young girls he entrapped. 

FLORIDA, USA, September 04 2001(weaselsearch.com)

By John Connolly 

  

To Hear the Tape Go HERE

When the stone thrower himself lives in a glass house, it is a matter of legitimate public interest.

John Fund, the forty-six year old writer on the staff of the Wall Street Journals' editorial page, has staked out a position as a man of integrity. On his frequent appearances on cable and network talk shows, he espouses the position of the right-wing conservatives. He is friends with people in the Bush White House. He is a dear friend of Conservative Grover Norquist. He recently met with Vice President Cheney. During the Clinton presidency he wrote often of the terrible acts committed by Clinton against women. On his appearances on Television evangelist Pat Robertson"700 Club" show, he often condemns those who do not live up to the highest moral standards. This conservative pundit seems to be on television more often, than "I Love Lucy" reruns. Although he portrays himself as a voice of the religious right, the never married Fund has cut a wide swath of sexual relationships through-out the Libertarian and Conservative parties. He's a regular right-wing Lothario. He is also a hypocrite.

There is nothing newsworthy about consensual sex between two unmarried adults, even if one of those supposed adults, acts badly. But, when a high profile public person stakes out the moral high ground, that person had better not be standing on quicksand. A few months ago, Morgan Pillsbury a twenty-seven year old woman, contacted me with information about her former lover of three years, John Fund. Although, I heard stories of Fund's less than cavalier treatment of women and particularly his Clintonesque treatment of one particular woman, I did not think that information worthy of a story. Amusing gossip yes-newsworthy no. But, the story Morgan told, gave me pause. If her allegations were true, Fund's relationship with her was not only bizarre; it was treacherous and bordered on the perverse. To back up her story of the bad behavior of John Fund, she furnished me with a tape recording she made of a conversation she had with Fund. The tape and conversations with Morgan's' mother, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster and others confirmed Morgan's tale.

Twenty years ago, Melinda and John Fund both worked for the then fledgling Libertarian party in California. Fund was the executive director of the local party in Sacramento. 

Melinda, who at the time was the mother of four children, she would have three more, began sexual relationship with the much younger Fund.  Melinda said, "John and I had a sexual relationship for four or five years. When he moved east, we remained friends. It never really ended." Melinda who is still active in the Libertarian party went on to say, "Six or Seven years ago, John called and during the conversation he told me, "Melinda if any of your children come east, have them look me up." I didn't realize that he was using me as a dating service!" Last year Melinda learned that not only had Fund been sleeping with Morgan, he was the father of the child she would abort.

Not only had Fund violated his twenty year old friendship with Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, he, much like Congressman Gary Condit (Fund recently wrote a scathing indictment of Condit's behavior) insisted that Morgan keep their three year affair secret.

Morgan was 23 years old the first time then 43 years old Fund, took her to bed. Sounds all too familiar doesn't it? According to Morgan, John Fund was the third man she had been intimate with. She had contacted him when she moved to the New York area after a bad breakup with her previous boyfriend. Instead of receiving consolation from the man who had on occasion been her babysitter back in California, Fund took her to bed. In 1999, confronted with an unplanned and apparently unwanted pregnancy, Fund abandoned Morgan and without attempting to dissuade her, allowed the distraught young woman to have an abortion, without any support from him.

John Fund is a full time writer for the Wall Street Journal. Yet, when I began researching a profile on Mr. Fund, he unlike most other journalist, began a campaign to kill the story. A source close to Fund told me a few days ago, that Fund and a confederate were attempting to plant a false and malicious blind item about two people at Talk magazine. They believed that the item would so frighten the victims that they would see to it that my profile of Mr. Fund was spiked. Mr. Fund and his pals can congratulate themselves, to protect innocent people from being attacked; I have pulled the piece from Talk magazine. Hence this abbreviated piece which is written solely to introduce the reader to John Fund on tape with Morgan Pillsbury, the mother of the aborted child.  

So there should be no confusion, this tape was made legally and given to me by Morgan Pillsbury. Ms. Pillsbury also gave me her permission to use her name, as did her mother Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. I have learned that very recently, Ms. Pillsbury who has experienced some financial difficulties, has at Fund's request, moved in with him. John Fund lives in an apartment in Jersey City, just a stones throw from the Holland Tunnel. I have also been told that Mr. Fund, for whatever reason, has given Morgan cash and a new computer.

The following is a transcription of the tape of Morgan Pillsbury and John Fund. Mr. Fund makes mention of how he is being threatened by Melinda.  An angry phone call from Melinda, as an outraged mother, is hardly a threat.  

He apparently believes that Melinda has no right to be angry for his pretending to contact her for three years, all the while sleeping with, and impregnation her oldest child. Melinda was not angry with Morgan, only with Fund, who she had not thought well of for many years.  For those who doubt the veracity of the transcript or wish to hear the anger and seething hostility of John Fund, Please listen to the audio tape.  John Connolly

Note: I wish to thank Michael Mann, who runs this web site, for his assistance.

Post Script from Melinda: (At the time I first listened to the tape, I was so stunned many details slipped right by me.  At the time, I was full time caring for my son, Arthur, who had shot himself through the brain in a suicide attempt.  Morgan had accepted $10,000 from Craig, my former husband, to persuade me to turn off life-support.  I found out about her motive and about her having been paid $5,000 a month, by Craig, to slander and libel me, through the financial discovery during the divorce.  Craig was then earning about $1,000,000 a year but did not want to pay support for a disabled son.  Sweet guy.  This was ONE of the reasons Morgan and I were not talking.  But she was right, she usually could get what she wanted out of me.  I've finally learned my lesson.)  

Copyright 2001 by Weasel Search.com. All rights reserved.  Republished with the permission of the author, John Connolly.  

Correction:  Melinda was Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of California and separated from her husband, Ronald Edward Kellett, who had taken her name some years before.  Fund, Melinda later discovered, occupied no position in the LP.  

Melinda's separation from Ron was caused by Ron's persistent domestic violence, victimizing Melinda and her four children.  Melinda is the mother of five children, but the eldest was raised and legally adopted by her parents, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Francis Pillsbury. Facts on Melinda's first marriage can be found at  Barteaux - The Family Story

John Fund and the Brown Badge of Courage

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

Somehow this disappeared from this site and others, for instance American Politics Journal.  Tell us why, Gene!

         Cast your minds back to the primary season of 2000.  John McCain had begun a ground swell in the Granite State with a campaign that allowed American voters to contrast a real war hero who meets your eye and takes no crap from anyone with George W. Bush, the Son of Monied Oil. 

            McCain is not a man without faults but a lack of courage is not among them. 

            Senator McCain was cleaning the floor with the Bush Baby When a rumor started to float across the panorama of politics covertly maligning the former POW. 

            John McCain, the rumor says, has an illegitimate love child who is half black.  His campaign screeches to a halt; the rumor, coming at a critical time, causes irreparable damage to his campaign that hits him at the ballot box like a nuclear explosion.

            There was no truth to the rumor.  McCain and his wife have an adopted child who is of mixed heritage but neither of them are biologically related to the child they took into their home and hearts. 

            Now that we know and understand the tactics employed by the NeoCons we can make some very educated judgments about where the rumor originated.  It has the marks of a Rove generated creative writing project.  The  rumor was circulated by Political Operative Prime for the Bushavicks, John Fund.  Placing such rumors is one of his most important functions for Bush and Assoc. 

            Just as the rumor was washing away the Senator's chances for the nomination McCain discovered the the identify of the man responsible.  At that moment in time John McCain was in New York.

            Not a man to leave to others what a real man does for himself the Senator stormed into the officers of the Wall Street Journal to confront the pestilential little NeoCon prick who had demeaned his honor and his family.

            John Fund, a non-veteran of anything but the war on Americans being waged so openly now by the Bush Administration showed all of the courage you could expect of someone like him.  Hearing the roars from the reception area he scampered into his office and hid under his desk. 

            Remember that.  This is an insight that serves to inform us of the nature of those in charge of our Nation's destiny. 

            John Fund, recipient of the Brown Badge of Courage awarded in the Wall Street Journal Men's Room soon after the encounter.   

Your Wishes Can Change the World

This year, as we watch the world around us collapsing, we are learning that Christmas is not about money. Christmas is about loving each other, about gifts that have nothing to do with the green folding stuff, or even silver and gold.

Our money is melting down into worthless goo. Stores are closing; cameras are going up at intersections across the country. This morning I received a call from a friend in Florida who argued for twenty minutes at her bank where she has done business for twenty years. The problem? They wanted to photograph her eyes biometrically. She refused, but not many are as determined as she.

The things that really matter will endure. Gifts like compassion, empathy, humor, familial love and friendship, last a life time and cannot be devalued. This Christmas we need to hold on to those things.

Christmas is being family. It is coming together to create communities. It is being conscious of how our actions and lives touch through time.

For months, years, I have been writing about what was going to happen to our nation and to the people we love. Last year I predicted the end of the world as we know it. Every week I have hammered on the same subject and on what needs to be done so that we can change direction. I have been writing and thinking about the problems for what seems like a life time. What I write is generally politics, but this time I want you to see why I know that change is possible. I know what it is like to feel helpless and lost.

Christmas is loving each other as we are loved by One Who Loves Absolutely.

When you find the strength of love anything is possible. This past week I took a story I had originally written for my children and rewrote it for you. Is a story about a time when I was lost and desperate. Instead of giving up I found the Christmas that glows through the hard times, endures through hardships and seemingly insurmountable problems.

The Star for Christmas was my response to circumstances beyond my control in 1979. There is always strength to sustain us, if we reach beyond ourselves to That One Who Loves Absolutely. Today, we are all reaching. When we extend ourselves we grow spiritually, finding things more wonderful than we could possibly have imagined as long as we do not give up. One of the things we will find is each other.

In 1979 I experienced a time of terrible anguish but I still had small children who needed me, needed to feel the wonder of Christmas. I reached into my own past and found strength from the memories of someone who had taught me the importance of courage, of holding on to my dreams and wishes.

The Star for Christmas custom began that year, drawn from the memories of wishes I had shared with James Dean. In 2001 I began writing the book explaining the custom to my children soon after Thanksgiving Day. Ayn, my youngest daughter, had asked me a question as we sat around the table after dinner. It had been a perfect holiday filled with happy memories revisited and cooperative efforts over turkey and stuffing.

The year was sliding towards the upcoming holidays. We were remembering Christmas' past.

Ayn asked me one of those questions that you never anticipate being asked. That question lead to many insights and eventually to their book and then to this one. The question Ayn asked was about the star in which our family had traditionally placed our wishes for the year to come on Christmas Eve. “When and where did this custom begin?” Ayn asked. She assumed it to be an old New England custom. Although I told her this was not the case it occurred to me that I had not actually explained the custom's origin to my children. I did not share my pain of 1979 with them, feeling it would be inappropriate.

I promised to write the Star’s history for them.

Later, as I sat down to write, I revisited my thoughts that year the custom began. Seeking the Star’s origin became a quest into the dusty reaches of my mind and heart, then, via paper trails, to memories of people long gone. I had never revisited those events, simply sealing them off and moving on. Through this journey I found not just the Star but many more unasked questions. I also found answers to questions that I didn’t know needed asking.

My wishes of 1979 had been answered in ways I did not expect when I considered them. I had never understood the power of hope and the strength of my dreams until then. We need to look at the world, ourselves, and realize what really matters.

Our dreams and wishes can be transformational.

Let this Christmas become a time of renewal for all of us. Savor the love that extends your life into those around you. Bake cookies and let them melt in your mouth. Enjoy every bite. Then plan for a very different future than the one being planned for us. Your wishes can change the world.

A Star for Christmas benefits America Goes Home

Clear & Present: SaudiGate, IsraelGate, Nixon & Reagan

     By Jane Stillwater  https://jpstillwater.blogspot.com/2017/07/clear-present-saudigate-israelgate.html

     I've got some good news and some bad news.  

     The good news is that, for at least the next few months, several million Americans will live a little bit longer because they will still have affordable healthcare.  Even though it's not single-payer healthcare (which could save millions more American lives and cost billions of dollars less), it's still better than Trump-Ryan-McConnell-Don't-Care by a long shot.  But then this isn't really news at all, right?  Just the same old story of our corporate-sponsored government vs. what Jesus would have done.  Boring.  Nothing to see here, folks.  Let's move on.

     The bad news is that I just got into a big fight with a friend of mine over RussiaGate.  https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/09/ten-problems-with-anti-russian-obsession/

     "The Trumps should be arrested," my friend shouted at me, "for using Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election!" 

     "But what about the Clintons and their use of the Saudis and Israelis to influence the 2016 election?" I replied.

     "But that's completely different."  

      Is it now?  In exactly what way?  Israelis have used the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to rule our elections with an iron hand for the past four decades, and the Saudis have used the Clinton Foundation to influence our elections by donating all kinds of $$$$ to it.  But nobody appears to be whining their little hearts out about that kind of stuff.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

      "Yeah, but..." countered my friend.  "Both AIPAC and the Clinton Foundation are run by Americans, not foreign nationals."  And that makes it okay?  Americans who are unregistered agents of foreign countries are supposed to declare themselves according to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Section 22 et seq.  Or perhaps these Americans are just committing treason?   

     Is my friend really actually trying to tell me that, "Treason is okay -- just as long as it doesn't involve Russia...." 

     Then I replied, "But AIPAC and Israel have tried to influence the outcome of almost every single American federal election in the past 50 years -- and in the past few decades, almost no politician has been sent to Washington without AIPAC's stamp of approval.  Just ask former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney about that one."  Not to mention Israel's grim influence in attempting to sink the USS Liberty 50 years ago today.  http://usslibertyveteransblog.org/cong-jerrald-nadler-accepts-discredited-version-of-uss-liberty-attack-1378/

      "But what about Barbara Lee?" answered my friend.  Geez Louise.  Bad example.  Rep. Lee is what we call a PEP -- Progressive Except for Palestine.  In America, PEPs are elected all the time.  Even Al Franken and Bernie Sanders are PEPs.  But you never ever hear of any PER (Progressive Except for Russia) getting elected.  In fact, according to spell-check, that isn't even a word.  https://972mag.com/gaza-will-be-unlivable-next-year-not-2020-as-the-un-says/128598/

     Nobody on The Hill dares to cross Israel or the Saudis -- for fear of not getting re-elected.  And yet almost everybody on The Hill feels free to bad-mouth Russia.  I rest my case.  https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/

PS:  No, wait.  I don't rest my case either.  Have you ever gotten yourself into a debate and then gone home and told yourself, "Good grief, I shoulda said this..."  Well.  Perhaps what I should have also said to my friend is, "Donald Jr. talked with some Russian attorney?  HELL, REAGAN KEPT AMERICANS HOSTAGE IN TEHRAN for months in order to get elected -- and later even illegally sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra scandal when our ally Iraq was at 'war' with Iran.  But nobody complained about that.  You never heard of ReaganGate.  Of course you didn't."

     Not to mention that Nixon totally screwed the Paris peace talks with Vietnam in order to get elected, causing the grim and unnecessary deaths of hundreds of American soldiers.  Where's the anger about that?  Plus the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, etc. all regularly chatted it up with Saudi princes and Israeli neo-colonialists in order to get elected too.  Hypocrites.  All of them."  http://www.globalresearch.ca/ syria-a-civil-war-supported- by-washington-and-its-allies- us-wants-to-partition-and- reconfigure-the-middle-east/ 5598841

     And, duh, I also should have told my friend about how I myself have lived through the grim and useless 1950s First Cold War, deliberately started by the Dulles brothers -- and that it was a miserable, scary, McCarthyism-laden time that I wouldn't wish on a dog.  And that Putin is no Stalin.  And that Trump, Netanyahu, Prince What's-his-Name and Mitch McConnell are not John and Bobby Kennedy either.

        To unsubscribe, just hit the reply button and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.                                         

                                                             ******** 

        Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world.

And while you're at it, please buy my books!   http://straitwellbooks.blogspot.com/2016/04/our-top-best-seller-right-now-is-bring.html   

     Plus here's a sneak preview of my latest book, a thrilling murder mystery entitled "Road Trip to Damascus," hopefully coming out by the end of 2017:  http://straitwellbooks.blogspot.com/2017/05/new-book-by-straitwell-press-coming-out.html