(02-18-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:38 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm not asking this in any way to be a jackarss, because I very well could be missing this. What is DJT pushing for that is attacking the elite ruling class? The individual billionaires and corporate interests that have bought and sold politicians of both parties to ensure their interests come before the interests of the average american?

de-regs + tariffs that are creating labor demand strikes a chord.....regardless, some entity has to win...I prefer it backs the USD vs. deflationary policies...the latte latter is what ya get with the bern l long term...

I'm all about 'creating incentive'...

And Stink you left out that with the Deep State crowd (quite different than Bernie who is simply an affable communist) you get stagflation, deliberately unrepresentative flat interest rates on savings but with continued government spending and regulation against private business (which you covered) in order to gradually push the middle class into the lower class, the last piece of which was the Obamacare plan which freed insurance companies of their responsibility to Boomers who had paid exorbitantly into a lifetime of premiums and are just about to take out of their systems for their retirement years.

The point being that increases the profitability of the health insurance companies and robs the X'ers and generation Y of inheritance as Boomers are forced to spend it for end of life care.

It was the passive door into socialism which always benefits the corporate structure. Hell, before DJT what we were headed into for the long haul was a Macro version of the old Company Store. People would work for corporations and receive just enough income that through corporately owned real estate brokers working in concert with corporately owned banks, with interest rates set for the public to steadily lose on savings vs loans, and through corporately owned hospitals, corporately owned retirement homes, and corporately owned funeral homes that they could literally siphon off the last 4% of American wealth which they heretofore couldn't get their hands on, and more importantly they would be able to continue what has silently been (even in the mortgage crisis of 2006-8) the largest grab of private land and homes ever. They long for a future where we all have to pay them rent and they literally own everything. That is the globalist agenda for the world. And they use nation states to lobby for policies and tax breaks and laws favorable only to them.

And the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas were all working toward that end just for slightly different motivations, and all of them have been aligned with those influencing this agenda on both sides of the aisle and controlling it through PAC money and lobby money.

Now the crucial point people have forgotten is that Capitalism is the best system of government, but in order for it to work the playing field must be level, the markets must be kept free (unregulated), and innovation and the right to profit by it must remain in the hands of the common man. Anti-trust laws provide the balance necessary and it was the rescinding of these laws or the lack of enforcement of them that has been half of why we are where we are. The other half that must be addressed is campaign finance reform. Only voters should be able to contribute to elections. Why? Because the elected are supposed to be beholden to the citizens they represent, and not to an agenda of a multi-national corporation who buys them through campaign contributions that dwarf those of the citizens. And when those corporations donate that PAC money through one of their corporations they get it all back through the charges made for political ads fort he candidates they purchased because their conglomerates own the media companies that sell the time on the tube (the MSM) which is why they have ceased reporting facts and truth, and have become very biased propaganda arms of the corporations that own them.

Right now the only alternative we have to more of the same (which Bloomberg squarely is) would be Bernie who would destroy the nation's economy and put an end to constitutional rule of law, and Donald John Trump.

He may be a rude crude dude, but he's the only one right now doing anything to return any power whatsoever to the common man.

I deleted my original response because I wanted to say I couldn't agree more with the bolded part. The problem is I've seen nothing pushed by Trump to address campaign finance reform, and even if he wanted it I think hell freezes over before McConnell agrees to it.

It's a two front war. The first front is the exposure of the House and Senate members that no longer work for the public and that has only just begun but several top Republicans outed themselves thinking they were invulnerable and that Trump couldn't possibly outlast them. That hasn't turned out well for those putzes.

Perhaps the most telling moment for the public to actually see was the chumminess of the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes at McCains funeral and then H.W.'s funeral. It wasn't odd to me that the Carters and Trumps were entities unto themselves.

The nest issue, and best saved for the 2nd term, and one that will tell us more about Trump than any other will be campaign finance reform. If he tackles that it will help tremendously if not in achieving reform but in exposing Democrats and Republicans who don't want it. Those who move against it will be those who profit the most from it.

Perhaps there is no more visible aspect to this monstrous system than the way that out of state corporations outspend the citizens in a state to push a particular candidate for election to swing a particular vote in either the house or senate. There's no way on Earth our Founding Father's ever intended such a circumstance to be able to corrupt elections. I'd say the second biggest tell is the number of itinerant politicians move to a state and district to get elected. Romney, Jeb Bush, W.Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc have all moved to be placed in a sensitive area for control of key states or in seeking a place to be elected. I have always found it peculiar that voters in those states and regions merely accepted this kind of ploy on face value without asking important questions. I think candidates need longer residency in a state before they are permitted to run. At least such action would curtail some of this as well.

W. was raised in Midland, TX and lived in Texas most of his life from the 1950s. He had an unmistakeable west Texas accent. He was governor in the late 90s. Jeb was raised in Houston (and has a Houston accent). After working in Texas for a while he moved to Florida for a job where his wife was from in 1980, a number of years before he ran for office. Romney worked in Boston for nearly 20 years before he ran for governor. And he did go to BYU. So you are just pulling nonsense out of the air. Seems like you have some holes in that tin foil hat!

(02-18-2020 04:48 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  de-regs + tariffs that are creating labor demand strikes a chord.....regardless, some entity has to win...I prefer it backs the USD vs. deflationary policies...the latte latter is what ya get with the bern l long term...

I'm all about 'creating incentive'...

And Stink you left out that with the Deep State crowd (quite different than Bernie who is simply an affable communist) you get stagflation, deliberately unrepresentative flat interest rates on savings but with continued government spending and regulation against private business (which you covered) in order to gradually push the middle class into the lower class, the last piece of which was the Obamacare plan which freed insurance companies of their responsibility to Boomers who had paid exorbitantly into a lifetime of premiums and are just about to take out of their systems for their retirement years.

The point being that increases the profitability of the health insurance companies and robs the X'ers and generation Y of inheritance as Boomers are forced to spend it for end of life care.

It was the passive door into socialism which always benefits the corporate structure. Hell, before DJT what we were headed into for the long haul was a Macro version of the old Company Store. People would work for corporations and receive just enough income that through corporately owned real estate brokers working in concert with corporately owned banks, with interest rates set for the public to steadily lose on savings vs loans, and through corporately owned hospitals, corporately owned retirement homes, and corporately owned funeral homes that they could literally siphon off the last 4% of American wealth which they heretofore couldn't get their hands on, and more importantly they would be able to continue what has silently been (even in the mortgage crisis of 2006-8) the largest grab of private land and homes ever. They long for a future where we all have to pay them rent and they literally own everything. That is the globalist agenda for the world. And they use nation states to lobby for policies and tax breaks and laws favorable only to them.

And the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas were all working toward that end just for slightly different motivations, and all of them have been aligned with those influencing this agenda on both sides of the aisle and controlling it through PAC money and lobby money.

Now the crucial point people have forgotten is that Capitalism is the best system of government, but in order for it to work the playing field must be level, the markets must be kept free (unregulated), and innovation and the right to profit by it must remain in the hands of the common man. Anti-trust laws provide the balance necessary and it was the rescinding of these laws or the lack of enforcement of them that has been half of why we are where we are. The other half that must be addressed is campaign finance reform. Only voters should be able to contribute to elections. Why? Because the elected are supposed to be beholden to the citizens they represent, and not to an agenda of a multi-national corporation who buys them through campaign contributions that dwarf those of the citizens. And when those corporations donate that PAC money through one of their corporations they get it all back through the charges made for political ads fort he candidates they purchased because their conglomerates own the media companies that sell the time on the tube (the MSM) which is why they have ceased reporting facts and truth, and have become very biased propaganda arms of the corporations that own them.

Right now the only alternative we have to more of the same (which Bloomberg squarely is) would be Bernie who would destroy the nation's economy and put an end to constitutional rule of law, and Donald John Trump.

He may be a rude crude dude, but he's the only one right now doing anything to return any power whatsoever to the common man.

I deleted my original response because I wanted to say I couldn't agree more with the bolded part. The problem is I've seen nothing pushed by Trump to address campaign finance reform, and even if he wanted it I think hell freezes over before McConnell agrees to it.

It's a two front war. The first front is the exposure of the House and Senate members that no longer work for the public and that has only just begun but several top Republicans outed themselves thinking they were invulnerable and that Trump couldn't possibly outlast them. That hasn't turned out well for those putzes.

Perhaps the most telling moment for the public to actually see was the chumminess of the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes at McCains funeral and then H.W.'s funeral. It wasn't odd to me that the Carters and Trumps were entities unto themselves.

The nest issue, and best saved for the 2nd term, and one that will tell us more about Trump than any other will be campaign finance reform. If he tackles that it will help tremendously if not in achieving reform but in exposing Democrats and Republicans who don't want it. Those who move against it will be those who profit the most from it.

Perhaps there is no more visible aspect to this monstrous system than the way that out of state corporations outspend the citizens in a state to push a particular candidate for election to swing a particular vote in either the house or senate. There's no way on Earth our Founding Father's ever intended such a circumstance to be able to corrupt elections. I'd say the second biggest tell is the number of itinerant politicians move to a state and district to get elected. Romney, Jeb Bush, W.Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc have all moved to be placed in a sensitive area for control of key states or in seeking a place to be elected. I have always found it peculiar that voters in those states and regions merely accepted this kind of ploy on face value without asking important questions. I think candidates need longer residency in a state before they are permitted to run. At least such action would curtail some of this as well.

Despite us having a whole lot of disagreements on a lot of things we could not be more in agreement about campaign finance reform. I really don't see why that would be a thing that we couldn't all agree on no matter which side of other issues we fall.

I do think there is an issue with out of state money spent on state campaigns. Why should Soros or the Koch Brothers be able to fund governors or district attorneys around the country? I would think states could constitutionally limit out of state money on local elections. Congressional and Senate is more problematic.

I would also think it would be constitutional to have a residency requirement for House elections. Right now, they only need to live in the same state. They don't have to live in the district. Ossoff, the carpetbagger, didn't when he ran with massive out of state money for the GA special House election. There were several Republicans in Texas looking around at House districts in both Dallas and Houston this year.

(02-18-2020 06:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  de-regs + tariffs that are creating labor demand strikes a chord.....regardless, some entity has to win...I prefer it backs the USD vs. deflationary policies...the latte latter is what ya get with the bern l long term...

I'm all about 'creating incentive'...

And Stink you left out that with the Deep State crowd (quite different than Bernie who is simply an affable communist) you get stagflation, deliberately unrepresentative flat interest rates on savings but with continued government spending and regulation against private business (which you covered) in order to gradually push the middle class into the lower class, the last piece of which was the Obamacare plan which freed insurance companies of their responsibility to Boomers who had paid exorbitantly into a lifetime of premiums and are just about to take out of their systems for their retirement years.

The point being that increases the profitability of the health insurance companies and robs the X'ers and generation Y of inheritance as Boomers are forced to spend it for end of life care.

It was the passive door into socialism which always benefits the corporate structure. Hell, before DJT what we were headed into for the long haul was a Macro version of the old Company Store. People would work for corporations and receive just enough income that through corporately owned real estate brokers working in concert with corporately owned banks, with interest rates set for the public to steadily lose on savings vs loans, and through corporately owned hospitals, corporately owned retirement homes, and corporately owned funeral homes that they could literally siphon off the last 4% of American wealth which they heretofore couldn't get their hands on, and more importantly they would be able to continue what has silently been (even in the mortgage crisis of 2006-8) the largest grab of private land and homes ever. They long for a future where we all have to pay them rent and they literally own everything. That is the globalist agenda for the world. And they use nation states to lobby for policies and tax breaks and laws favorable only to them.

And the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas were all working toward that end just for slightly different motivations, and all of them have been aligned with those influencing this agenda on both sides of the aisle and controlling it through PAC money and lobby money.

Now the crucial point people have forgotten is that Capitalism is the best system of government, but in order for it to work the playing field must be level, the markets must be kept free (unregulated), and innovation and the right to profit by it must remain in the hands of the common man. Anti-trust laws provide the balance necessary and it was the rescinding of these laws or the lack of enforcement of them that has been half of why we are where we are. The other half that must be addressed is campaign finance reform. Only voters should be able to contribute to elections. Why? Because the elected are supposed to be beholden to the citizens they represent, and not to an agenda of a multi-national corporation who buys them through campaign contributions that dwarf those of the citizens. And when those corporations donate that PAC money through one of their corporations they get it all back through the charges made for political ads fort he candidates they purchased because their conglomerates own the media companies that sell the time on the tube (the MSM) which is why they have ceased reporting facts and truth, and have become very biased propaganda arms of the corporations that own them.

Right now the only alternative we have to more of the same (which Bloomberg squarely is) would be Bernie who would destroy the nation's economy and put an end to constitutional rule of law, and Donald John Trump.

He may be a rude crude dude, but he's the only one right now doing anything to return any power whatsoever to the common man.

I deleted my original response because I wanted to say I couldn't agree more with the bolded part. The problem is I've seen nothing pushed by Trump to address campaign finance reform, and even if he wanted it I think hell freezes over before McConnell agrees to it.

It's a two front war. The first front is the exposure of the House and Senate members that no longer work for the public and that has only just begun but several top Republicans outed themselves thinking they were invulnerable and that Trump couldn't possibly outlast them. That hasn't turned out well for those putzes.

Perhaps the most telling moment for the public to actually see was the chumminess of the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes at McCains funeral and then H.W.'s funeral. It wasn't odd to me that the Carters and Trumps were entities unto themselves.

The nest issue, and best saved for the 2nd term, and one that will tell us more about Trump than any other will be campaign finance reform. If he tackles that it will help tremendously if not in achieving reform but in exposing Democrats and Republicans who don't want it. Those who move against it will be those who profit the most from it.

Perhaps there is no more visible aspect to this monstrous system than the way that out of state corporations outspend the citizens in a state to push a particular candidate for election to swing a particular vote in either the house or senate. There's no way on Earth our Founding Father's ever intended such a circumstance to be able to corrupt elections. I'd say the second biggest tell is the number of itinerant politicians move to a state and district to get elected. Romney, Jeb Bush, W.Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc have all moved to be placed in a sensitive area for control of key states or in seeking a place to be elected. I have always found it peculiar that voters in those states and regions merely accepted this kind of ploy on face value without asking important questions. I think candidates need longer residency in a state before they are permitted to run. At least such action would curtail some of this as well.

W. was raised in Midland, TX and lived in Texas most of his life from the 1950s. He had an unmistakeable west Texas accent. He was governor in the late 90s. Jeb was raised in Houston (and has a Houston accent). After working in Texas for a while he moved to Florida for a job where his wife was from in 1980, a number of years before he ran for office. Romney worked in Boston for nearly 20 years before he ran for governor. And he did go to BYU. So you are just pulling nonsense out of the air. Seems like you have some holes in that tin foil hat!

I know you are a Bushy. The family is from Connecticut. It's no accident they spread out to the two most influential and populated growth states in the Union. The family had been positioned for years for influence brokering. Bonesmen and ex-CIA directors like H.W. know exactly what they are doing at all times. H.W. positioned his family in oil in Texas, water in South America, and of course that oil partner was a Bin Laden. And Bullet I know by their deeds who they really are. I don't have a tinfoil hat because my observations are based in reality, which is unlike the Kool-Aid you drink on this issue.

(02-18-2020 08:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 06:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And Stink you left out that with the Deep State crowd (quite different than Bernie who is simply an affable communist) you get stagflation, deliberately unrepresentative flat interest rates on savings but with continued government spending and regulation against private business (which you covered) in order to gradually push the middle class into the lower class, the last piece of which was the Obamacare plan which freed insurance companies of their responsibility to Boomers who had paid exorbitantly into a lifetime of premiums and are just about to take out of their systems for their retirement years.

The point being that increases the profitability of the health insurance companies and robs the X'ers and generation Y of inheritance as Boomers are forced to spend it for end of life care.

It was the passive door into socialism which always benefits the corporate structure. Hell, before DJT what we were headed into for the long haul was a Macro version of the old Company Store. People would work for corporations and receive just enough income that through corporately owned real estate brokers working in concert with corporately owned banks, with interest rates set for the public to steadily lose on savings vs loans, and through corporately owned hospitals, corporately owned retirement homes, and corporately owned funeral homes that they could literally siphon off the last 4% of American wealth which they heretofore couldn't get their hands on, and more importantly they would be able to continue what has silently been (even in the mortgage crisis of 2006-8) the largest grab of private land and homes ever. They long for a future where we all have to pay them rent and they literally own everything. That is the globalist agenda for the world. And they use nation states to lobby for policies and tax breaks and laws favorable only to them.

And the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas were all working toward that end just for slightly different motivations, and all of them have been aligned with those influencing this agenda on both sides of the aisle and controlling it through PAC money and lobby money.

Now the crucial point people have forgotten is that Capitalism is the best system of government, but in order for it to work the playing field must be level, the markets must be kept free (unregulated), and innovation and the right to profit by it must remain in the hands of the common man. Anti-trust laws provide the balance necessary and it was the rescinding of these laws or the lack of enforcement of them that has been half of why we are where we are. The other half that must be addressed is campaign finance reform. Only voters should be able to contribute to elections. Why? Because the elected are supposed to be beholden to the citizens they represent, and not to an agenda of a multi-national corporation who buys them through campaign contributions that dwarf those of the citizens. And when those corporations donate that PAC money through one of their corporations they get it all back through the charges made for political ads fort he candidates they purchased because their conglomerates own the media companies that sell the time on the tube (the MSM) which is why they have ceased reporting facts and truth, and have become very biased propaganda arms of the corporations that own them.

Right now the only alternative we have to more of the same (which Bloomberg squarely is) would be Bernie who would destroy the nation's economy and put an end to constitutional rule of law, and Donald John Trump.

He may be a rude crude dude, but he's the only one right now doing anything to return any power whatsoever to the common man.

I deleted my original response because I wanted to say I couldn't agree more with the bolded part. The problem is I've seen nothing pushed by Trump to address campaign finance reform, and even if he wanted it I think hell freezes over before McConnell agrees to it.

It's a two front war. The first front is the exposure of the House and Senate members that no longer work for the public and that has only just begun but several top Republicans outed themselves thinking they were invulnerable and that Trump couldn't possibly outlast them. That hasn't turned out well for those putzes.

Perhaps the most telling moment for the public to actually see was the chumminess of the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes at McCains funeral and then H.W.'s funeral. It wasn't odd to me that the Carters and Trumps were entities unto themselves.

The nest issue, and best saved for the 2nd term, and one that will tell us more about Trump than any other will be campaign finance reform. If he tackles that it will help tremendously if not in achieving reform but in exposing Democrats and Republicans who don't want it. Those who move against it will be those who profit the most from it.

Perhaps there is no more visible aspect to this monstrous system than the way that out of state corporations outspend the citizens in a state to push a particular candidate for election to swing a particular vote in either the house or senate. There's no way on Earth our Founding Father's ever intended such a circumstance to be able to corrupt elections. I'd say the second biggest tell is the number of itinerant politicians move to a state and district to get elected. Romney, Jeb Bush, W.Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc have all moved to be placed in a sensitive area for control of key states or in seeking a place to be elected. I have always found it peculiar that voters in those states and regions merely accepted this kind of ploy on face value without asking important questions. I think candidates need longer residency in a state before they are permitted to run. At least such action would curtail some of this as well.

W. was raised in Midland, TX and lived in Texas most of his life from the 1950s. He had an unmistakeable west Texas accent. He was governor in the late 90s. Jeb was raised in Houston (and has a Houston accent). After working in Texas for a while he moved to Florida for a job where his wife was from in 1980, a number of years before he ran for office. Romney worked in Boston for nearly 20 years before he ran for governor. And he did go to BYU. So you are just pulling nonsense out of the air. Seems like you have some holes in that tin foil hat!

I know you are a Bushy. The family is from Connecticut. It's no accident they spread out to the two most influential and populated growth states in the Union. The family had been positioned for years for influence brokering. Bonesmen like H.W. know exactly what they are doing at all times. And Bullet I know by their deeds who they really are. I don't have a tinfoil hat because my observations are based in reality, which is unlike the Kool-Aid you drink on this issue.

HW made money in the oil business. W. lost money in oil but made it in baseball. Jeb made money in Florida real estate.

(02-18-2020 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 08:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 06:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I deleted my original response because I wanted to say I couldn't agree more with the bolded part. The problem is I've seen nothing pushed by Trump to address campaign finance reform, and even if he wanted it I think hell freezes over before McConnell agrees to it.

It's a two front war. The first front is the exposure of the House and Senate members that no longer work for the public and that has only just begun but several top Republicans outed themselves thinking they were invulnerable and that Trump couldn't possibly outlast them. That hasn't turned out well for those putzes.

Perhaps the most telling moment for the public to actually see was the chumminess of the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes at McCains funeral and then H.W.'s funeral. It wasn't odd to me that the Carters and Trumps were entities unto themselves.

The nest issue, and best saved for the 2nd term, and one that will tell us more about Trump than any other will be campaign finance reform. If he tackles that it will help tremendously if not in achieving reform but in exposing Democrats and Republicans who don't want it. Those who move against it will be those who profit the most from it.

Perhaps there is no more visible aspect to this monstrous system than the way that out of state corporations outspend the citizens in a state to push a particular candidate for election to swing a particular vote in either the house or senate. There's no way on Earth our Founding Father's ever intended such a circumstance to be able to corrupt elections. I'd say the second biggest tell is the number of itinerant politicians move to a state and district to get elected. Romney, Jeb Bush, W.Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc have all moved to be placed in a sensitive area for control of key states or in seeking a place to be elected. I have always found it peculiar that voters in those states and regions merely accepted this kind of ploy on face value without asking important questions. I think candidates need longer residency in a state before they are permitted to run. At least such action would curtail some of this as well.

W. was raised in Midland, TX and lived in Texas most of his life from the 1950s. He had an unmistakeable west Texas accent. He was governor in the late 90s. Jeb was raised in Houston (and has a Houston accent). After working in Texas for a while he moved to Florida for a job where his wife was from in 1980, a number of years before he ran for office. Romney worked in Boston for nearly 20 years before he ran for governor. And he did go to BYU. So you are just pulling nonsense out of the air. Seems like you have some holes in that tin foil hat!

I know you are a Bushy. The family is from Connecticut. It's no accident they spread out to the two most influential and populated growth states in the Union. The family had been positioned for years for influence brokering. Bonesmen like H.W. know exactly what they are doing at all times. And Bullet I know by their deeds who they really are. I don't have a tinfoil hat because my observations are based in reality, which is unlike the Kool-Aid you drink on this issue.

HW made money in the oil business. W. lost money in oil but made it in baseball. Jeb made money in Florida real estate.

Did I say otherwise? And before he died he made sure one of W's daughters was well positioned for Water in South America, Uruguay I believe, but it's been a while since I read up on it. And W's money didn't come from baseball, it came from selling a facility built with public funds.

As I said they positioned themselves very well, and not by accident. And the real estate connections were connected connections. Wake up. This all goes way back. It's Joe Kennedy style positioning.

You need to do some background reading on Zapata Oil (est. 1953) and his early partner who stepped down from the CIA to help found the company and returned to active CIA status in '63. And you need to read up on H.W.'s father Prescott Bush (Massachusetts) and his government service. And Gerald Ford's associations with H.W. Bush. The connections Bullet run deep and run all the way back to the highly sensitive positioning of Prescott, to the Warren Commission where Ford enters the picture, to the Oil Company origins, to their offshore business partners over the years (a fascinating lot running from offshore Cuba to familiar names in the Middle East), to H.W.'s appointment as the Agency Director, to Reagan's being forced to take either Bush or Ford as his running mate to receive the backing of the RNC, and all the way through the political and public lives of his sons and grandchildren.

Then get back to me.

BTW: Barbara's heritage is quite impressive as well.

I think JRsec is my new favorite poster on this board.