The Great Awakening

by Joel Turtel

Public schools actually benefit in many ways from the alleged new disease, ADHD. The No Child Left Behind Act has put increasing pressure on schools and teachers to make sure their students pass standardized math and reading tests. Under the new Federal guidelines, if a school gets on the “failure” blacklist and fails to improve its performance over time, the school can lose tax funding or even be shut down. So teachers’ and principals’ jobs are at stake here.

This intense pressure pushes school authorities to resort to extreme measures to make sure teachers can maintain discipline in class. Hence, many public schools now make liberal use of an unproven, alleged disease called ADHD, and pressure parents to give normal, active, but bored children mind-altering drugs to keep them quiet in class.

Also, by promoting the myth of ADHD, public schools can pretend that their failure to educate our children, year after year, is partly the children’s fault. We can’t blame school authorities for a child’s academic failure if the child has ADHD, can we? If kids who have ADHD “symptoms” disrupt classes, teachers can’t teach the rest of the class. So how can we blame teachers and the schools for the third-rate education our kids get? So this alleged disease ADHD gives public- school authorities a convenient excuse to blame the victim, our children.

Public Schools Benefit Because ADHD Is Now An “Official” Disability

Public schools also benefit because ADHD is now officially classified as a “disability.” The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) passed in 1990 gives public schools Federal special-education funds for children labeled as having a disability. Public schools can get in excess of $16,000 a year in tax money for a student in a special-education class, compared to the average $7500 per student in a “normal” class. Even worse, special-education funding costing from $20,000 to $100,000 per year has become common.

As a result, for every student a school classifies as ADHD and puts in a special-education class, the school can get from $10,000 to $90,000 per year in additional Federal tax funds. That is because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act specifically forbids schools from considering cost when designing their special-education instruction programs.

By joining the ADHD bandwagon, public schools have literally hit the jackpot for Federal funds. It is morally obscene when public schools pressure parents to give their normal, active, but bored children mind-altering drugs to make them “behave” in class. The moral obscenity is compounded if schools benefit financially by dumping alleged ADHD children into special-education classes. This is akin to a prison warden putting inmates who demand better conditions into solitary confinement and then getting an extra $10,000 to $90,000 per inmate for doing so.

Parents, if public school officials tell you they think your child has this alleged disease, ADHD, beware. It is far more likely that your bright child is perfectly normal, and is fidgeting in class, not paying attention, or not listening to the teacher because he is bored out of his mind. It is far more likely that your local public school has PSTD (Public School Teaching Disorder) than your child has this alleged disease ADHD.

Share This

On a beautiful spring evening in 2006 we were all graced and honored by the coronation of the planets new King of Peace: Sun Myung Moon. Jesus Christ was only able to carry the title of peace as far as “prince”. But now by the magnanimous benevolence of our own Sun Myung Moon, we now have a King. He was aptly honored by no less than 81 US Senators and dignitaries. American’s elected public servants were representing most excellently those who elected them by paying tribute to the humble Korean immigrant who carries not one shred of documentation nor ever has during his six decade visit to this country.

Share This

Who killed JFK?

According to Hunt’s confession, which was taken by his son, St. John (“Saint”) Hunt, over the course of many personal and carefully planned father-son meetings, the following individuals were among the key participants:

Lyndon B. Johnson: LBJ, whose own career was assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover (FBI), gave the orders to a CIA-led hit team, and helped guide the Warren Commission/lone gunman cover-up.

Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an affair with JFK).

David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Veciana.

William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.

Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.

Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.

David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible “French gunman,” Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.

Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, Hunt’s scenario has the ring of truth.

Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed the enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate and Iran-Contra.

The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians, researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers to expose the truth about Dealey Plaza. While there are too many to name, they include, but are not limited to (and in no particular order): Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, Josiah Thompson, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Summers, Robert Groden, Victor Marchetti, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone, Michael Canfield, A.J. Weberman, Sylvia Meagher, William Turner, Jim Marrs, Pete Brewton, John Newman, Philip Melanson, Hal Verb, Mae Brussell, Harold Weisberg, Oliver Stone, Mike Ruppert and Dan Hopsicker, Jim diEugenio and Linda Pease.

Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of cover-up specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve a final rebuke, and eternal scorn.

Highlighting Hunt’s role

Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it, the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman’s Coup D’Etat in America. Lane’s book details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt lied about his whereabouts. The investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis as two of the three “tramps” arrested at Dealey Plaza.

Time has only made these investigations more relevant. More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.

Hunt to Nixon to Bush

The Rolling Stone piece fails to go after the roles of Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. But the Hunt confession, if accurate, leads directly to them, to their lifelong associates, and all the way to the present George W. Bush administration.

The Dallas-Watergate-Iran-Contra connection has been thoroughly documented by the key JFK researchers, and in particular, in the work of Peter Dale Scott, one of the very first to show the deep political continuity across three decades. Daniel Hopsicker’s Barry and the Boys goes into even more detail on the players.

Consider the career of George H.W. Bush. He was a Texas oilman (Zapata Oil) and a CIA operative, involved with the Bay of Pigs. Bush’s name was found in the papers of George DeMohrenschildt, one of Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA handlers. As documented by Pete Brewton, author of The Mafia, the CIA and George Bush, Bush was deeply connected with a small circle of Texas elites tied to the CIA and the Mafia, as well as the Florida-based CIA/anti-Casto Cuban exile/ Mafia milieu As Richard Nixon’s hand-picked Republican National Committee chairman, and later as CIA director, Bush constantly covered-up and stonewalled for his boss about Watergate, which itself (by the admission of Frank Sturgis and others) was a cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Tracking any of the individual CIA operatives involved with the Bay of Pigs, it is impossible to ignore or deny direct connections to George H.W. Bush and his crime family, across the Kennedy assassinations, covert operations in Indochina and, later, Latin America.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, the US government murdered John F. Kennedy. There are people still alive today who were involved directly and indirectly implicated. Some are probably even serving in positions of high influence. Some still have never been identified or touched.
All of these individuals still need to be pursued, exposed, and brought to justice.

Share This

(AP/China Daily) U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday he was assured that China is committed to currency flexibility and more financial reforms, but Beijing offered no specific changes that could help assuage U.S. congressional ire over China’s huge trade surplus.

“I heard from everyone, right up to the top, they are committed to currency flexibility, to currency reform,” Paulson told reporters.

Officials said they plan to lift a 10-month-old moratorium on new U.S.-Chinese joint-venture securities brokerages in early autumn, instead of December as originally planned, Paulson said.

The secretary, Washington’s point man on China, is trying to avert drastic action by congressional critics who are pressing for punitive measures over Beijing’s currency controls and multibillion-dollar trade surplus with the United States.

Beijing had not been anticipated to offer concessions during Paulson’s visit. But he was expected to use the trip to try to persuade Congress that his “Strategic Economic Dialogue” is making progress.

Paulson said he discussed that process in meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Vice Premier Wu Yi, Beijing’s top envoy to the dialogue. Paulson said he made the case that China would benefit from a faster appreciation of its currency, the yuan. But he gave no indication that Chinese leaders promised a faster rise or any other specific changes.

The secretary declined to give details of his talks with Hu and Wu, saying that would diminish the value of such private meetings.

But Paulson suggested the Chinese might be growing impatient with the wide range of issues raised by Washington.

“They’re too polite to say they’re frustrated,” he said, adding he believes Chinese leaders are wondering if they will ever be able to satisfy Washington.

Paulson said he shared the frustration of American lawmakers at the pace of reform and expressed confidence that they would understand that he is making progress.

However, he acknowledged: “I’ve got more work to do with Congress.”

The secretary also met with China’s central bank governor, finance minister and banking and securities regulators.

Paulson has been granted unusually wide access to top Chinese officials in a sign of the urgency Beijing places on preserving trading relations with the United States.

Finance Minister Jin Renqing agreed to hold a meeting in October of the U.S.-China Joint Economic Commission, a forum for discussing financial issues, Paulson said.

Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs chief executive, says Beijing’s currency controls are less significant than barriers to foreign competition in its financial industries and other structural factors in driving the trade surplus.

But critics have focused on the yuan, accusing China of keeping it undervalued by up to 40 percent. They say that gives Chinese exporters an unfair price advantage and widens its yawning trade gap.

Chinese leaders say they plan eventually to let the yuan trade freely on world markets. But they say acting too abruptly will hurt China’s frail banks and cause financial turmoil.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

David Ignatius - Washington Post Writers Group

WASHINGTON — The National Intelligence Estimate released July 17 put the problem plainly enough: Al-Qaida has “regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability” using a new safe haven in the lawless frontier area of northwest Pakistan known as Waziristan.

The question is: What is the United States going to do about it?

For those who might have forgotten in the six years since Sept. 11, 2001, what a reconstituted al-Qaida could do, the intelligence analysts explained that the terrorist group has “the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and/or fear among the U.S. population.” The analysts noted that al-Qaida continues to seek biological, radiological and nuclear weapons “and would not hesitate to use them.”

Perhaps it is human nature not to see threats clearly until a disaster actually happens — even if it’s the second time around. How else to explain the limited public response to this clear and emphatic warning? Maybe the Bush administration has cried wolf about terrorism so often that people have stopped believing anything the government says. Or that the whole subject is now obscured by the choking fog of Iraq, as in the president’s mind-numbing formulation of the threat: “They are al-Qaida … in … Iraq.”

But the question remains: What should the United States do about al-Qaida’s new safe haven in Pakistan, from which it may already be plotting attacks that could kill thousands of Americans? It is Sept. 10, metaphorically, with a little increment of time still remaining.

The lesson of 9/11 is that it’s necessary to act decisively. But the lesson of Iraq is that unwise actions can make the terrorism problem worse. Which course is right?

The best answer I’ve heard comes from Henry Crumpton, a former CIA officer who was one of the heroes of the agency’s campaign to destroy al-Qaida’s safe haven in Afghanistan in late 2001. Crumpton argues that the United States must take preventive action, but that it should do so carefully, through proxies wherever possible.

The right model for a Waziristan campaign is the CIA-led operation in Afghanistan, not the U.S. military invasion of Iraq. Teams of CIA officers and Special Forces soldiers are best suited to work with tribal leaders, providing them weapons and money to fight an al-Qaida network that has implanted itself brutally in Waziristan through the assassination of more than 100 tribal leaders during the past six years. It would be better to conduct such operations jointly with Pakistan, but if the government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf can’t or won’t cooperate, then the U.S. should be prepared to go it alone, Crumpton argues.

“The United States has an obligation to defend itself and its citizens,” says Crumpton. “We either do it now, or we do it after the next attack.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This