Posts Tagged With: cover up

Object (UFO) Passes Moon For 45 Seconds…..


THIS CLIP REPLACES LAST VERSION -This space object (UFO), if in Earth orbit, is a very distant object which can be determined by its speed. It is in frame for roughly 45 seconds which is among the longest I have filmed for an object of this type. I have filmed others that were in frame for up to a minute.

Categories: Aliens and UFO's | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS, ABC Presidents Have Siblings Working for Obama………


The presidents of ABC News and CBS News have siblings who work in the Obama administration and are involved with Benghazi.

Political consultant Richard Grenell told “Fox News Watch” that the ties raise concerns as to why the mainstream media has not more aggressively pursued the story.

“I think the media’s becoming the story, let’s face it,” Grenell said. “CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the (National Security Council) on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let’s call a spade a spade.”
Rhodes’ brother, Ben, is President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, and Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is Obama’s special assistant, Newsbusters reports.

Additionally, CNN deputy bureau chief Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides, Grenell noted. “It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It’s a family matter for some of them.”

Nides is deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

ABC reported Friday that Rhodes, brother of the CBS News president, was key to revising the talking points that were issued after the attack and are under scrutiny from a House subcommittee.

CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson has come under fire from her own employer for allegedly “wading dangerously close to advocacy on” Benghazi.”

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Benghazi UPDATE from John Bolton…..


As an Under Secretary of State during the September 11, 2001, attacks, and later as Ambassador to the UN, I saw very closely what a terrorist event looks like.
Therefore I’m also familiar with how an administration handles such an attack. What’s happened with Benghazi is not how it’s supposed to be handled and I think it could be a hinge point for the Obama administration.
Yesterday’s hearing, convened by House Republicans to get to the bottom of what happened, revealed a wealth of information.
The three witnesses who testified at the Oversight & Government Reform Committee are not bystanders. These are not people who are going to report on hearsay. These are people who were directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack.
Here are three highlights from the last 24 hours:
High-level staffers removed vital pieces of information tying terrorist organizations to attacks. They knew early on that radical Islamic terrorists participated in the attack.
The former Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya, Gregory Hicks, said in the hearing, “none of us should ever again experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi on 9/11/2012.” He went on to say he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at 2 a.m. the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.
Gregory Hicks also testified that Secretary Clinton’s claiming the attack was incited by a YouTube video caused Libyan officials to hinder the FBI’s arrival to the scene.
House Republicans are committed to finding the truth about what the Obama Administration knows about the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
They won’t stop until they get answers.
Thank you,
John Bolton
Former Ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Did You Know??..Hillary Clinton Fired for Lies/Unethical Behavior..


408211_456963007691203_1199406626_n
==========================================================
Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday January 23rd, 2013
By DAN CALABRESE – Bet you didn’t know this.

I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the atergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigatio

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

John Wilkes Booth, John St. Helen, David E. George…The same man?





==========================================================================
The top photo is John Wilkes Booth in his 20’s, the second photo is the man who claimed to be Booth, age 63, embalmed and displayed before mummification. The Third photo is the mummified body that was displayed around the country.

On January 13, 1903 a man in Enid, Oklahoma, by the name of David E. George died. in his last dying statement, the man confessed to his landlord, Mrs. Harper, that he was in fact John Wilkes Booth. He told them that if they doubted him, then they should go to the rooming house where he lived and look behind the chair and they would find a loose board in the wall. The gun he used to kill Lincoln would be behind the board along with some papers helping to identify him. Well they found these things. This was soon the topic of discussion around town. The January 22, 1903 Enid Wave bore the following article banked with headlines:

WAS IT BOOTH?
The Impression Growing, From Evidence,
Circumstantial and Otherwise, that
the Supposed Remains of
David E. George are None
Other Than the Remains of
JOHN WILKES BOOTH!
The most remarkable circumstance surrounding the dead man, as links to the fact that his right leg was broken just above the ankle, years ago,… Besides these lines, comes to the fact that J. Wilkes Booth was born in 1839 and was twenty-six years of age when the assassination took place and sixty-three years old in 1902, if living, which is the exact age of George as found in his papers…

One thing is certain, the remains now lying embalmed in the Pennimann Undertaking Rooms should not be buried until the identity is made more clear…”

The remains of David E. George’s body were mummified and kept on display at the undertakers’ for many months. Shortly thereafter, Finis L. Bates, a Memphis Lawyer, bought the mummy and began presenting it on the circus side show circuit.
In 1931, at the urging of a showman that owned the mummy, the remains were X-rayed, operated on, and otherwise examined by a group of medical men and criminalists in Chicago, Illinois. It was claimed that the fractured leg, the broken thumb, and the scar on the neck were all verified. The panel was convinced that they had proven that the mummy was in fact the remains of John Wilkes Booth. Despite the fact that the panel consisted of recognized experts in their field, the investigation failed to gain wide publicity.
1937 saw several events that helped to make the financial turn-a-round for the seemingly ill-fated mummy. This was the year that Otto Eisenschimil released his book “Why Was Lincoln Murdered?” This author produced a vast amount of documentation that suggested that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was the ringleader of the plot to kill Lincoln and that Stanton arranged to facilitate the escape of Booth. This book, while not exactly expounding on the possibility for Booth’s escape, none-the-less made it seem feasible. Another historical volume published in that year was “This One Mad Act” by Izola Forrester, a great daughter of John Wilkes Booth. This book presented evidence that members of her family were in personal contact with the assassin for a generation after 1865. As a result of these two books, 1937 saw much newspaper coverage of the controversy of the Lincoln assassination in general.
Mr. and Mrs. John Harkin owned the mummy from 1937 until at least 1942. (Mr. Harkin had been the former tattooed man for the Wallace-Hagenbeck Circus.) They toured the country with the Jay Gould Million Dollar Shows for several seasons.
In 1903 when Finis L. Bates read the news concerning the death of David E. George in Enid, Oklahoma, he rushed to Enid to check it out. Bates, in the early 1870’s, in Texas, had been a close friend with a man going by the name John St. Helen. When St. Helen became very ill he confided to Bates (he thought he was on his death-bed) that HE was John Wilkes Booth. St. Helen recovered. Later, when Bates asked St. Helen about the confession, St. Helen denied he ever said it. When Bates read the news of David E. George, nearly 30 years later, claiming to have been John Wilkes Booth, Bates became curious. he wondered if John St. Helen and David E. George were one in the same person.

Upon arriving in Enid, Bates headed to the Pennimann Undertakers Rooms to see the body of David E. George. Yes! This was the man he had known as John St. Helen. Bates secretly bought the mummy and took it back to Memphis. He spent five years conducting what he called research to prepare a book about this matter. (He hid the mummy in his garage during this time!) In 1908, Bates released his book. According to his book, the main plot goes something like this:

On the afternoon of April 25, 1865, Booth remembered that he had left his diary, wallet and other personal effects in the marsh a few miles from the Garrett farm. He asked a man by the name of Ruddy, who was caretaker at the Garrett farm, to retrieve them for him. Ruddy left to get them. Meanwhile, Booth got wind that government agents were closing in on him so he took off on his own leaving Herold behind. When Ruddy returned with Booth’s personal items he found that Booth was gone. Expecting him to return, Ruddy kept the personal items on his own person. Herold and Ruddy slept in the barn that night. When the government agents arrived this is why the man in the barn denied he was Booth. This is also why Booth’s personal belongings were found on the body of the man shot in the barn. Lastly, Bates made the claim that no reward money was ever actually paid to anyone for the capture of Booth but yet rewards were paid for the capture of Atzerodt and Payne. Therefore, this proved that the government knew they had the wrong man and that Booth was never caught.

Categories: Civil War | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

Secret Cold War tests in St. Louis raise concerns…Bio weapons tested on Americans


Doris Spates was a baby when her father died inexplicably in 1955. She has watched four siblings die of cancer, and she survived cervical cancer.
After learning that the Army conducted secret chemical testing in her impoverished St. Louis neighborhood at the height of the Cold War, she wonders if her own government is to blame.
In the mid-1950s, and again a decade later, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, at schools and from the backs of station wagons to send a potentially dangerous compound into the already-hazy air in predominantly black areas of St. Louis.
Local officials were told at the time that the government was testing a smoke screen that could shield St. Louis from aerial observation in case the Russians attacked.
But in 1994, the government said the tests were part of a biological weapons program and St. Louis was chosen because it bore some resemblance to Russian cities that the U.S. might attack. The material being sprayed was zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder.
Now, new research is raising greater concern about the implications of those tests. St. Louis Community College-Meramec sociology professor Lisa Martino-Taylor’s research has raised the possibility that the Army performed radiation testing by mixing radioactive particles with the zinc cadmium sulfide, though she concedes there is no direct proof.
But her report, released late last month, was troubling enough that both U.S. senators from Missouri wrote to Army Secretary John McHugh demanding answers.
Aides to Sens. Claire McCaskill and Roy Blunt said they have received no response. Army spokesman Dave Foster declined an interview request from The Associated Press, saying the Army would first respond to the senators.
The area of the secret testing is described by the Army in documents obtained by Martino-Taylor through a Freedom of Information Act request as “a densely populated slum district.” About three-quarters of the residents were black.
Spates, now 57 and retired, was born in 1955, delivered inside her family’s apartment on the top floor of the since-demolished Pruitt-Igoe housing development in north St. Louis. Her family didn’t know that on the roof, the Army was intentionally spewing hundreds of pounds of zinc cadmium sulfide into the air.
Three months after her birth, her father died. Four of her 11 siblings succumbed to cancer at relatively young ages.
“I’m wondering if it got into our system,” Spates said. “When I heard about the testing, I thought, ‘Oh my God. If they did that, there’s no telling what else they’re hiding.'”
Mary Helen Brindell wonders, too. Now 68, her family lived in a working-class mixed-race neighborhood where spraying occurred.
The Army has admitted only to using blowers to spread the chemical, but Brindell recalled a summer day playing baseball with other kids in the street when a squadron of green Army planes flew close to the ground and dropped a powdery substance. She went inside, washed it off her face and arms, then went back out to play.
Over the years, Brindell has battled four types of cancer — breast, thyroid, skin and uterine.
“I feel betrayed,” said Brindell, who is white. “How could they do this? We pointed our fingers during the Holocaust, and we do something like this?”
Martino-Taylor said she wasn’t aware of any lawsuits filed by anyone affected by the military tests. She also said there have been no payouts “or even an apology” from the government to those affected.
The secret testing in St. Louis was exposed to Congress in 1994, prompting a demand for a health study. A committee of the National Research Council determined in 1997 that the testing did not expose residents to harmful levels of the chemical. But the committee said research was sparse and the finding relied on limited data from animal testing.
It also noted that high doses of cadmium over long periods of exposure could cause bone and kidney problems and lung cancer. The committee recommended that the Army conduct follow-up studies “to determine whether inhaled zinc cadmium sulfide breaks down into toxic cadmium compounds, which can be absorbed into the blood to produce toxicity in the lungs and other organs.”
But it isn’t clear if follow-up studies were ever performed. Martino-Taylor said she has gotten no answer from the Army and her research has turned up no additional studies. Foster, the Army spokesman, declined comment.
Martino-Taylor became involved years ago when a colleague who grew up in the targeted area wondered if the testing was the cause of her cancer. That same day, a second colleague confided to Martino-Taylor that she, too, lived in the test area and had cancer.
Martino-Taylor decided to research the testing for her doctoral thesis at the University of Missouri. She believes the St. Louis study was linked to the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project and a small group of scientists from that project who were developing radiological weapons. A congressional study in 1993 confirmed radiological testing in Tennessee and parts of the West during the Cold War.
“There are strong lines of evidence that there was a radiological component to the St. Louis study,” Martino-Taylor said.
Blunt, in his letter to the Army secretary, questioned whether radioactive testing was performed.
“The idea that thousands of Missourians were unwillingly exposed to harmful materials in order to determine their health effects is absolutely shocking,” the senator wrote.
McCaskill agreed. “Given the nature of these experiments, it’s not surprising that Missouri citizens still have questions and concerns about what exactly occurred and if there may have been any negative health effects,” she said in a statement.
Martino-Taylor said a follow-up health study should be performed in St. Louis, but it must involve direct input from people who lived in the targeted areas.
“Their voices have not been heard,” Martino-Taylor said.

Categories: Politics, Strange News | Tags: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Unveiled: How Obama REALLY got into Harvard……


SAUDI BILLIONAIRE DID HELP OBAMA INTO HARVARD.
=======================================================
In late March 2008, on a local New York City show called “Inside City Hall,” the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico, Percy Sutton, told host Dominic Carter how he was asked to help smooth Barack Obama’s admission into Harvard Law School 20 years earlier.
The octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior.

Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Given, the game-changing nature of this revelation when it surfaced in late August 2008, the Obama camp and its allies in the media, particularly Politico and Media Matters, shifted into overdrive to kill the story. Through a series of denials, lies and slanders about Sutton’s mental health, they succeeded.

The story, however, has come back to life. The elusive al-Mansour was a guest on the BlogTalkRadio show, “The National and International Roundtable,” Sept. 19, 2012.

In his introduction, the host openly acknowledged that al-Mansour “made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he had been a patron of President Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School.”

The host goes on to describe al-Mansour as “co-founder of the International law firm of al-Waleed, al-Talal and al-Mansour and special adviser to Saudi Arabian prince, his royal highness Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulazziz.”

This meshed completely with what Sutton had said in 2008. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

Although Sutton did not specify a date, this would likely have been in 1988 when the 26-year-old Obama was applying to Harvard Law School.

Khalid al-Mansour was a piece of work. Although impressively well connected, the Texan-born attorney and black separatist had not met the paranoid racial fantasy unworthy of his energy.

Several of his speeches can still be seen on YouTube. In one, “A Little on the History of Jews,” he lectures the world’s Jews, “God gave you nothing. The children from Poland and Russia were promised nothing. But they are stealing the land the same as the Christians stole the lands from the Indians in America.”

For the record, bin Talal was the very same Saudi who had offered New York $10 million to help the city rebuild after 9/11, but who had his gift refused by Mayor Rudy Guiliani. In September 2001, Giuliani was in no mood to hear even a billionaire blame America for inciting the attacks with its pro-Israel stance, no matter how deep his pockets.

For deeper background into why bin Talal might have been helping Obama, read Frank Miele’s excellent piece in the unlikely Daily Interlake of Kalispell, Mont.

Ben Smith, then of Politico, took the lead in killing the story. Shortly after the story broke, Smith ran the disclaimer that “Barack Obama’s campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton.”

The Obama camp, in fact, denied that Obama even knew al-Mansour. Smith then talked to al-Mansour. At first, al-Mansour avoided contradicting Sutton’s story out of respect for Sutton, “a dear friend.” When pressed, however, al-Mansour disowned Sutton’s story. “The scenario as it related to me did not happen,” he reportedly told Smith.

A self-appointed “spokesman for Sutton’s family” by the name of Kevin Wardally put the penultimate nails in this story’s coffin with an email to Smith that read in part: “As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”

For Smith, even though Wardally had gotten Sutton’s age wrong by two years, this emailed slander was proof enough that Sutton’s highly specific claim was manufactured. Media Matters, meanwhile, scolded those conservative bloggers that did not accept the various denials at face value.

Independent journalist Ken Timmerman, now running for Congress in Maryland, followed up with Wardally. Unconvincingly, Wardally claimed that a nephew of the elder Sutton had retained his services.

Sutton’s son and daughter, however, told Timmerman that no one in their family even knew who Kevin Wardally was, let alone authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.

When Timmerman contacted al-Mansour, he repeatedly declined to comment on what Sutton had said and, contrary to the line from the Obama camp, claimed to know Obama personally.

With Hillary out of the race, no newsroom in America felt compelled to follow up on Timmerman’s research. At the time this story was gelling, in early September 2008, the media were doing all their digging in Alaskan dumpsters. The 89-year-old Sutton died in December 2009.

The Obama media will try to ignore this new revelation or, if not, kill it. Their best argument now is that al-Mansour was not on the air when his introduction was read. That is true enough.

Yet from the casual tone of the introduction, the listener senses that within black nationalist circles, the story Sutton told is believed to be true. If so, it should absolutely matter that a Saudi billionaire and his black nationalist cohorts have been promoting Obama from the beginning.

Ben Smith is now editor of Buzzfeed. If he ever wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, the onus is on him to follow up. If he wants to throw his peers a bone, he can report that bin Talal owns 7 percent of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News.

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Huckabee Praises Obama ‘Amateur’ Book, Says Media Censoring It


Mike Huckabee says the major media are trying to censor news about the book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.

The former presidential candidate and Arkansas governor joins a growing list of famous conservatives — including Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump — urging Americans to read the blockbuster new book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.

They say this book could change the election result come November.

The Amateur has been at the top of the bestseller lists, and is considered the most powerful expose of Barack Obama and his administration.

Here’s what Mike Huckabee said on his top-rated cable news show:

“I want to recommend to people, if you have not read Ed’s book The Amateur, I encourage you to do so. It’s an easy read. By that I mean that he’s written it so the average reader can absorb it and appreciate it.

“It’s been such a popular book. None of the major networks is willing to have Ed on even though his book was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for six weeks, and has been in the top 10 for I think 16 weeks.

“It is a runaway bestseller, the hottest political book of the entire election season, and none of the networks will talk to him about it.

“You might want to find out what they’re so afraid of.

“The book is The Amateur. I hope you’ll read it if you haven’t already.”

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

mayanexplore.com

Riviera Maya Travel Guide

Cajun Food, Louisiana History, and a Little Lagniappe

Preservation of traditional River Road cuisine, Louisiana history & architecture, and the communities between Baton Rouge & NOLA

Jali Wanders

Wondering and Wandering

Southpaw Tracks

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

what's the formula?

Nurturing awesomeness: from the parents of celebrities, heroes, trailblazers and leaders

Tarheel Red

A Voice of Conservatism Living in Carolina Blue

cancer killing recipe

Just another WordPress.com site

dreamshadow59

A great WordPress.com site

Mike's Look at Life

Photography, memoirs, random thoughts.

Belle Grove Plantation Bed and Breakfast

Birthplace of James Madison and Southern Plantation

Letters for Michael

Lessons on being gay, of love, life and lots of it

Sunny Sleevez

Sun Protection & Green Info

Backcountry Tranquility

A journal about my travels and related experiences :)

LEANNE COLE

Art and Practice

Lukas Chodorowicz

Travel, culture and lifestyle experienced on my adventures around the world. All photos taken by me. Instagram: @colorspark

BunnyandPorkBelly

life is always sweeter and yummier through a lens. bunnyandporkbelly [at] gmail [dot] com

%d bloggers like this: