Monday, December 08, 2003
Horrah. CNN is going to have a report tonight at 7 PM ET on secret societies.
Transcript should be available online. Get it.SECRET SOCIETIES
Their meetings are shrouded in secrecy, and outsiders are strictly prohibited. What are they hiding? Don't miss our special series as we take a glimpse inside "Secret Societies." Tune in all this week at 7 p.m. ET. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/
Dan Brown http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/reviews.html
The disinfo site is comprehensive on that topic. in defense of conspiracy theories
An Introduction to the World of Conspiracy Theories
for the Mainstream American
by Craig DiLouie (firstname.lastname@example.org) - November 29, 2001 Search results:
Joseph Farah wrote an article about the Bilderbergs a few months ago.
OK back in May.
World government in action
Posted: May 16, 2003
Do you believe in conspiracies?
Do you believe there are powerful people who conspire together annually to solidify their grip on world domination?
Do you believe all of this happens in secret, with the quiet complicity of the world media?
Well, I've got news for you. There really are conspiracies at work. There really are powerful people plotting world domination. And they really operate in near-total secrecy as the world press sits on its collective duff.
In fact, it's happening right now as you read this column. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32606
Post: More on the Bilderbergshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Meria/message/1578
SUre President Bush we trust you were told by God that your God is everybody's god. The same god.At today's White House news briefing, WND asked presidential press secretary Scott McClellan about controversy surrounding Bush's recent comment that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, and Sen. John Kerry's profane remark about the president.
WND: Since the president is no doubt aware of the millions of his supporters in the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Evangelical Alliance, and given his statement in London that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, my question, what is his reaction to Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention who said the president is simply mistaken, and Merle Haggard of the NEA, who said Muhammad's central message was submission, Jesus' central message was love?
Posted at 06:49 pm by citizenmom
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Gotta watch Reagan movie discussion
This is one of the best discussions I've ever seen:
Panel discussing the film The Reagans, shown on showtime. The panel discussion is broadcast on C-span.
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 179336 - 12/01/2003 - 0:58 - NS
C-span broadcast http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=171923815
Carl Anthony, the co-producer of the movie was on the panel, at one point in the discussion, says the co-producer, he did
not support the portrayal of Reagan in the movie! being shown by the scene in the clip! Can you believe this. I am totally astonished, a co-producer of this film, rejecting his own movie, in part. Well now, which parts are we the audience supposed to accept and support.
Marvin Kalb, what a moron. He said very little, however, when he did speak, to me, he sounded so biased, so in a fog about the controversy surrounding the CONTENT of the film. He wonders why people are so upset that this particular portrayal of Reagan is being shown.
Chavez got it right on the bullseye - she rippingly said - because it isn't true!
I agree. My position is most of history is not the true portrayal of history. Ever wonder why most of the Pearl Harbor records were sealed for some fifty years. We as an aware citizenry have to hold all of them accountable, historians, documentary producers, etc.
Oh my goodness the co-producer says this movie was not MEANT TO BE TRUE!
He says somebody thinks Reagan was just wonderful and somebody else thinks he was a devil because of his position on AIDS.
Well, of course, this is America, we are going to have differing opinions, and we are going to have opinions based on partisanship. The important factor is that as much truth and facts as possible be known about our government so we can make informed opinions, not partisan ones.
So for both viewpoints, are they based on historical truth? Thankfully, the moderator is allowing for a discussion of the clip from the movie that shows a discussion between Mr. and Mrs.
Mrs. Reagan is attending a group session of AIDS sufferers and after the one guy says everybody is fearful of him, even his physician, she is asked to talk to her husband about AIDS. The next scene we see Mr. and Mrs. together in the bedroom, naturally, for dramatic effect, President Reagan is reclining in bed, if I'm not mistaken, he has a cigar in his mouth, but maybe not.
Nancy Reagan: IF YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT IT NOBODY WILL AND NOBODY WILL DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT... AND ALL OF THESE CHILDREN ARE GONNA DIE... AND THE BLAME WILL BE ON OUR HEADS.
MOVIE: HE SAYS NOTHING.
Yep, there is dead silence. I think he is still smoking that cigar. Now come on, for weeks all we were hearing was how Reagan did say something. But listen now, in October '86 says historian, Cannon Reagan did say something about it. He says for the historical record it is important to be accurate, something like that.
CDC knew in 1982 says Rosen what caused AIDS and Reagan didn't address it.
Well, this is incredibly interesting. The movie makers took out the most egregious statement.
Cannon says the movie gets very close to his own criticism of Reagan on the issue of AIDS, he had the power to get people involved in the issue of AIDS, he could have used the bully pulpit... he didn't...
Cannon still doesn't think this is a fair proposal. Some wanted him to speak out, others didn't want anything mentioned about AIDS.
Chavez. If he had spoken out he would have talked about abstinance, a moral stance ... many would not have liked what he had to say.
Here goes Rosen again, CDC said this was a crisis, but money diverted.
Other panelist, they could have portrayed that in the movie, but they didn't they made him seem homophobic.
Oh yeah Carl Anthony says they watered it down. He says Reagan was not homophobic...
Rosen, says something about his policies have the same impact... why do all of these people who are attacking this movie ...care whether the portrayal of Reagan is as a homophobic... his policies had the impact worse than the words themselves.
Moderator: we are... concerned about level of accuracy...
Martin Kalb: I don't know what he said. He was so biased I believe I just blotted him out.
There were no historians that were consultants, says host.
Kalb, main and principle characters not contacted.
Carl Anthony: asked why others than himself were not consulted. Anthony: He quotes accurately doesn't use unnamed sources... he says all of those books... were used by the several screenwriters... Was that sufficient, asks host, Anthony says not if you are doing a documentary, but if you are doing a drama, it's ok.
Rosen, oh it's about the relationship of the Reagans.
Well people, that isn't what comes off the screen. Why don't we just make up stuff about John F. (freakin) Kennedy. He had a communicable sexual disease himself, DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT.
Now ok, the best people to go to for the facts are who were there and hey, many of the people advising Reagan are not dead yet.
Hey, Chavez looks hot in that suit. I am going to try to find that exact outfit when I go shopping at Gabes or Gabriel Brothers. Too bad she is ok with national identification cards. Yep, she said that during another interview on C-Span a few weeks ago. Search for her appearance.
I have got to say this character portraying Reagan, Gil, whatever, married to Barbara, forget his name, is speaking so slowly, on purpose, to portray Reagan as weakening, weak, weaker, weakest.
Rosen again, look at it as entertainment, about the Reagans, not just Ronald Reagan, it is about their relationship.
Well from my perspective, if Mrs. Reagan had so much in the way of political savvy and talent why didn't she run for Congress back then, she had the name recognition; she probably would have been president one day. Better than creepy Hillary. In fact, I suggest Nancy Reagan put in her name after Bush is reelected.
Rosen again, it is entertainment, and playing out when country divisive.
Anthony, yuk. Well he is just defending his project which in part he has rejected. In his mind, none of it has to be true.
Chavez: the film was an attempt to denegrate the legacy of Reagan.
Cannon, this was entertainment, it could have been better, had they reflected some of the facts, it would have done better.
Watch for a rerun of the movie this Thursday on showtime www.sho.com
Well, I don't get that channel.
Posted at 12:32 pm by citizenmom
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Discuss truth @Iraq contracts
Don't miss Steven Kelman's article concerning controversy over those Iraq Reconstruction contracts. "No 'Cronyism' in Iraq," November 6, 2003
Reprinted from Washington Post.
Kelman was interviewed on Fox program hosted by John Gibson on Tuesday, November 10, 2003. He was asked point blank whether the Iraq contracts were in exchange for political donations. Again, as the day before he denied any such connections. He again stated these are career people who award these contracts.
Kelman was a guest on C-Span, Monday, November 10, 2003. He was cited as former Administrator of Office of Federal Procurement, 1993-1997.
Notice, those years were during Clinton's Administration.
Kelman explained the procurement process, citing specifically the agency that has dealt with the contract process for many years. He does make a good case for his position. But many out there will simply not believe him, or anyone else who does not portray their perspective. In other words, don't let the facts stand in the way of my opinion.
Citizen Mom doesn't care a hoot about which side of the so-called aisle the transparent shoe drops.
If critics are going to rant about contracts going to Haliburton, because the current vice President had been associated with Haliburton previously, then critics must find out what connections Clinton/Gore or their extended family had to similar awarded contracts.
Steve Kelman appeared on C-Span, Monday, November 9, 2003, Washington Journal.
Caller to C-Span cites the research of Center for Public Integrity and Charles Lewis.
Host is asking Kelman about the Center's chart of the Top 10 U.S. contractors and campaign contributions.
"They looked at contributions to political campaigns, didn't look to any contributions to other politicians or career people... Inspector General of USAID, report, he says, gave a clean bill of health to USAID... it's easy to put up a chart showing campaign contributions and contracts - that doesn't mean there is a connection between them... the contract decisions are made by career servants," says Kelman.
Kelman also said of course, we must be ever vigilant. Ask the questions.
Center Public Integrity Iraq contractsWindfalls of War
Posted at 09:31 am by citizenmom