text:
Caroline Crocker Interview
Caroline Crocker holds a Ph.D. in cell biology. Her passion is to promote good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence rather than mere adherence to consensus. According to her, it is vital to the health, prosperity, and even faith of our nation that science be freed from the constraints of financial, political, and religious motives. For this reason, she founded American Institute for Technology and Science Education (AITSE), a non-profit educational foundation with the aim of enhancing scientific understanding and integrity. This interview first appeared at TheBestSchools.org in November of 2011.
TBS: Dr. Crocker, you came to our attention through your role in the Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which was released in 2008. Can you tell us how you came to be part of that documentary? What happened to you that was so important that Ben Stein wanted to make it public?
ICC: I came to the attention of the producers of the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as a result of the 2005 publication of an article by Geoff Brumfield in Nature magazine. Briefly, soon after receiving my PhD in immunopharmacology, I began teaching cell biology at George Mason University (GMU). But when I gave students information on the scientific questions surrounding the theory of evolution, I found myself banned from lecturing, my three-year contract switched for a one-year, and my job over. Amazingly, it did not end there! GMU found a way to deprive me of legal representation by offering the law firm that was representing me a more lucrative contract. There is much misinformation about me and my situation on the Internet simply because, even during the filming of the movie, I chose not to reveal all the incredible facts surrounding my case.
According to the documentary, Ben Stein was concerned that those who dare to question aspects of evolutionary theory and give credence to the scientific theory of Intelligent Design were finding themselves ostracized and penalized in the academy. Unfortunately, this situation is quite normal for anyone who questions the status quo. This can be seen in the stories of Dr. Dan Shechtman, the recent Nobel Prize--winning scientist who was ridiculed for entertaining theories that did not fit with the current consensus in chemistry, Dr. Jim Enstrom, a scientist who recently lost his position at UCLA after questioning the consensus on diesel emissions, or even Nobel Prize--winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, who resigned from the American Physical Society over their claim that the evidence for global climate change is incontrovertible. Ben wanted to highlight the plight of three scientists who were being penalized for suggesting that the mechanism of evolution, being random mutations and natural selection, may in fact not lead to increased information and that ID may have something to contribute to the scientific discussion. Despite the fact that, as Dr. Shechtman said, "…a good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he reads in the textbooks," questioning evolution leads to job loss.
TBS: Tell us a bit about your life before your difficulties at George Mason University and their exposure in Expelled. Where did you get your degrees? In what fields of study? What sort of career as a biologist had you envisioned? When did you start entertaining "politically incorrect" views and what were the first glimmers that they were going to get you into trouble?
ICC: I started university at a community college in Ankeny, Iowa, when I was 16 yrs old. After I obtained my Associate Degree, my family moved to England and I went with them. I then studied at Warwick University for a Bachelor of Science in microbiology and virology, graduating with a 4.0 grade average (when translated to the American system). Then, after a break to have my children, I did a Master's in medical microbiology at Birmingham University. Finally, my PhD was in immunopharmacology; the thesis was on an evaluation of the effect of glucocorticoids on T-cell function and phosphodiesterase activity. To accomplish the work for a doctorate from Southampton University under Martin Church, PhD, DSc, I had to bring in my own funding, so I had a nice foretaste of what work as a professor would involve. I generated ideas, wrote proposals, contacted and corresponded with potential sponsors, planned and performed experiments, organized and interpreted data, wrote reports, published numerous peer-reviewed articles, presented the work at scientific meetings, and brought in grants—thus funding my own PhD and a significant amount of the work of the department where I was based, Creighton University Allergic Disease Center.
My goal and dream was to be a tenured professor at a major university—after all, I already had proven myself able to bring in grants, do research, and write. However, because I was based at a medical school, the only teaching experience I received was when I taught part of an immunology class for allergy fellows, co-organized and implemented a basic immunology course for our department, and supervised and trained graduate students. For this reason, when my family and I moved to the DC area, I decided to spend some time teaching, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I taught a variety of biology courses until 2006, when the pressures resulting from my Darwin-doubting ways meant I had to leave teaching. In 2006 I began a postdoctoral fellowship investigating the signal transduction pathway from the T-cell receptor to activation of NF-κB using molecular biological techniques, confocal microscopy, and Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer analysis.
I began to entertain "politically incorrect views" while I was studying for my PhD. Basically, I did not see how evolution by random mutation and natural selection could lead to the kind of intricate nanotechnology that I was seeing inside a cell. Aspects of evolutionary theory conflicted with what I knew of science. I've heard people say that eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information, but that belief takes more faith than I have. I think that it might make more sense to just evaluate the scientific evidence and follow where it leads rather than try to fit the new evidence about the copious amounts of information found in cells into a theory that was suggested over 150 years ago when cells were thought to be simple blobs of protoplasm.
When I began to teach, I noticed that the assigned textbooks were written in a way so as to encourage students to memorize, rather than critically assess, some of the information. I did not think this practice would lead to their success in future biology classes nor in their chosen careers in science. Therefore, in keeping with Yale recommendations on teaching controversial subjects, my habit was to teach students "not to argue from authority and to link their claims and assertions to appropriate evidence whenever possible."
For example, when teaching about the function of steroids in cellular communication, I had the students go beyond the text and encouraged them to speculate on the possible side effects of hydrocortisone. In the same way, in the single cell biology lecture where I presented the information the textbook provided on evolution and the origin of life, I suggested that the students critically assess the claims made. I asked questions like, "Is microevolution is a legitimate 'proof' of macroevolution?" or "How much does the synthesis of a racemic mixture of individual amino acids in a closed system add to a discussion of the origin of life?" I encouraged them to think about what they were being taught, making it clear that disagreeing with the professor was okay—provided they backed their opinions up with science. The students enjoyed this method of teaching and clamored to get into my classes. Their letters can be found in my book Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters.
My first inkling of trouble was the day that my supervisor called me into his office and told me that I was going to be disciplined for allegedly "teaching creationism." That was not true. In fact, I had not even given the offending lecture during the previous semester. My supervisor was acting on a report from one student who refused to put the complaint in writing. A copy of the document where he admits this fact is in my book. A week after Free to Think was published I found out that the student who made the false allegations about me had been previously suspended from GMU for intimidating other students and for cheating—perhaps this is why she did not put anything in writing. Nonetheless, the grievance procedure, which is fully documented in my book, was a farce, my three-year contract was switched for a one-year, and my job at GMU was over.
TBS: After George Mason University, what happened next? Describe going on the job market once your unorthodox views about biological origins became known. What obstacles did you face? How did you cope?
ICC: After I lost my job at GMU, I taught part-time at Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC) where the departmental supervisor is a lovely lady who does not discriminate based on one's personal views on evolution. However, one day, soon after a story about my situation came out on NPR, I overheard some administrators instructing my supervisor there to get rid of me. "We don't want her type here." She objected and defended me to them, but I did not want to take advantage of her kindness.
I resigned my position at NVCC in December 2006 and started a postdoctoral fellowship conducting cell biology research for the Department of Defense. After only a year, that job was terminated due to "lack of funding," despite the fact that I was hired to work on a three-year NIH grant-funded project. I tried to find other research and/or teaching positions and did get interviews but, perhaps because the Washington Post published an article about my plight, even when I got offers they were withdrawn within a couple of weeks. An employee at the National Institutes of Health later told me that I am blacklisted, so I gave up on my dreams of being a professor and turned my attention to other endeavors.
Now I do a variety of things: working for American Institute for Technology and Science Education, a nonprofit focused on integrity in science, speaking, publishing various articles, writing a new book, tutoring medical students, helping professors author their papers, and serving as an independent biology consultant for Rice University. I am not bored!
TBS: There's much talk at colleges and universities about academic freedom. How has your perspective on academic freedom changed in the last ten years? How do you now envision genuine academic freedom?
ICC: Ten years ago I thought we had academic freedom. Now I know I was wrong. The GMU handbook says that faculty members have "the right to unrestricted expositions of subjects (including controversial questions) within one's field … in a professionally responsible manner … without fear of censorship or penalty." But, they nonetheless used state funding to deprive me of legal representation as is documented in the preface to my book, which was written by Edward Sisson, former partner at Arnold and Porter, a big law firm in Washington DC. He points out that any university could use the precedent set by GMU against one of their faculty members. Say a professor files a lawsuit against their employer. The university could hire the law firm that is also representing the professor, claim a conflict of interest and state that a condition of working with the law firm is to have the professor fired as a client. That is what GMU did. Obviously, this opens the door to the potential for any university to deprive their politically-incorrect professors of legal representation—after all, professors are not usually as well funded as universities.
Academic freedom requires that the professor's right to "unrestricted expositions of subjects, [etc.] … without fear of censorship or penalty" is genuine, not just theoretical. However, since I am a biologist, not a political scientist, a historian or a philosopher, I tend to use a different term to describe what this looks like. Scientific integrity. To explain, imagine a tree of science. The roots represent the scientific knowledge we have to date. The trunk corresponds to science education from elementary school at the bottom to post-graduate education at the top. The branches are analogous to professions that are dependent on science: medicine, industry, teaching, etc. The leaves are the benefits for the public. It's a great tree -- one that we all depend upon.
Unfortunately, the tree of science has become infected. The infection started in the trunk in education and may cause problems in the root system. It has also worked its way up the tree, spreading from branch to branch. Even now some leaves are turning brown and falling off. It is to be expected that as science progresses there will be normal turnover in the tree, but in modern science there is also an infection called "lack of scientific integrity."
The word "integrity" means honesty, completeness, or wholeness. Therefore, scientific integrity (and true academic freedom) happens when students honestly do their own work, industry and research institutions publish the complete story about their work and products, and scientists and teachers are encouraged to consider and teach the whole picture, even scientific evidence that challenges the current consensus. This is not happening in many areas of science today—we do not have academic freedom, and this threatens our health, prosperity, and scientific progress as a nation.
TBS: You've written a book titled Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters. Why did you write this book and what were you trying to accomplish with it? Ben Stein wrote the foreword. How did you swing that?
ICC: There are many reasons why I wrote this book, all of which are explained in the author's introduction. However, the most important one is simply as the subtitle says: because scientific integrity matters. To explain further, I wrote the book because:
Suppression of unpopular scientific viewpoints and lack of scientific integrity have many consequences beyond just the loss of one person's career: financial, religious, health, and social. Through the writing of this book, I wanted to make a contribution to bringing about change so that scientific data and interpretations are evaluated on their merit, not on how well they fit with the politically-correct or financially-beneficial consensus.
I believe that freedom (a foundational American value) requires one to have choices. If a person is not made aware of the options, then they do not have a choice; thus they have less freedom. So I wrote Free to Think and started American Institute for Technology and Science Education (AITSE) to give people clear and balanced information so that they can be just that---free to think.
I wanted to set the record straight about my story and address the misleading or incomplete information found about me on the Internet. Free to Think contains the entire story of both what I taught and what happened as a result of teaching it, complete with extensive documentation.
Finally, I thoroughly enjoyed working with students and was happy to have a chance to inspire others by sharing their stories. Many have told me that this is their favorite aspect of the book: the tales of my wonderful students.
Norman Geisler, a prolific author and culture critic, said this about the book: "As an expert witness at the Scopes II Trial in Little Rock Arkansas (1981) and author of five books on the topic, I can say with confidence that Dr. Crocker's book is one of the best stories of the tragic violation of free speech in the University classrooms that I have encountered. Jefferson was right: 'Taxation without representation is tyranny.' And if he were to return today to discover that public institutions will not even allow the principles of The Declaration of Independence (such as Creator and creation) to be taught in our classrooms, I have no doubt he would start a second American revolution."
It would be great if this book would add to the growing movement in our country towards scientific openness, freedom, and integrity. We have such a long way to go. Of course, I am very aware most scientists went into science because they desire to explore and discover truth in their area of specialization. Scientists are not terrible people, but they are also not infallible. Financial considerations (will publication of these results or interpretation of the data lead to a grant?), peer-pressure (if I raise questions will my colleagues make sure I do not get tenure?), and pre-conceived ideas (this is the way I was taught and furthermore it is what everyone thinks) may cause many to ignore inconvenient results, or unduly emphasize conventional wisdom. Free to Think draws attention to this problem and, hopefully, will contribute to the move to reverse this unhealthy situation. Finally, I hope this book will help people to accurately distinguish between scientific data, interpretation of that data, and imaginative extrapolation, an extremely important skill if one is to cut through the bunk.
In all my interactions with Ben Stein I have found him to be kind, gracious, and supportive. I did not have to twist his arm to help with the book; I am very grateful that he answered my emails about the foreword within 24 hours. I am impressed by his willingness to face opposition for his stance on truth in science—and often think about our conversation the first time I met him. "Caroline, how do you like being a movie star?" "Well, I'm not sure yet, Ben." "There is nothing about it not to like!" Amazing when you consider the opposition he has endured as a result of his involvement in the movie Expelled. The foreword he contributed can be read online.
TBS: How would you characterize your views on biological origins? How do you respond to someone who claims that your views are religiously motivated and not properly part of science? Why do you think your views may legitimately be incorporated into biology curricula at the college level?
ICC: I see myself as an evolutionary agnostic because I am quite comfortable with saying, "I don't know," simply because my worldview is based neither on science nor on the need to prove the accuracy of a theory based on materialistic presuppositions. That microevolution occurs is not controversial. I openly admit that there is intriguing scientific evidence that could be interpreted as indicating common descent. However, I am also aware that there are gaps in our knowledge of how this might have happened, if indeed we are interpreting the data accurately in the first place. After all, two cars may have very similar parts, but that does not mean one descended from the other. Rather, both were designed by the same intelligent being. To get back to the biology, there are many theories about how random mutations and natural selection might lead to increasing information content, but few are anywhere near convincing. In the future, the neo-Darwinian mechanism may be shown sufficient to explain macroevolution and the specified complexity of life—or not. I do not have the faith that some people exhibit in "science of the gaps." But, as a cell biologist, I am well aware that, contrary to what some would claim, evolution is not a fact yet.
As to whether my views are religiously motivated, I can only point out that I made a personal commitment to Jesus when I was 18, but did not begin to question evolution until over 20 years later. This was when I was studying for my doctorate—the questioning was because of the science. I do not have a problem with the idea that God could have created the diversity of life through the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection, but my question remains whether He did. That is a scientific question with a scientific answer.
When I was teaching, I used a common word-picture to help my beginning biology students understand the inner functioning of a cell: I compared cells to factories. The cellular processes of transcription, translation, and intracellular transport would be the ways that the factory uses information from the head office to build parts and assemble all the machines, get them to the right place, and make the factory work. In both factories and cells these processes require huge amounts of information. Based on my understanding of cell biology, I do not think that these information-laden systems could result from random DNA mutation and natural selection. But, we do have past experience as to where information originates—it is with intelligent beings. As an example, let's take an iPhone. It is a wonder of technology and no one would suggest that it did not have some (very) intelligent designers. But, the information that went into making an iPhone is nothing compared to that in a single human cell. Human experience suggests that, if we see evidence of engineering, there was an engineer, if we see a painting, there was a painter. To me, this is simple logic. Therefore, when we find complex and specified information in the cell, this points to the idea that life also had an intelligent designer. The information science of intelligent design (ID) cannot tell us how the designer accomplished the design, why the designer did it, nor who the designer is. But, it can and does lead to profitable research, both at Biologic Institute and elsewhere.
The reason why my ideas about evolution should be permissible as part of a college course is simply that they are not based on religion but on a genuine questioning of the interpretation of scientific data. On a wider level, I would consider scientific integrity in college education to be giving the students all the basic information (in cell biology, just teaching about the chemistry, structure, and function took over 95% of the time), but also allowing and encouraging them to be free to think about the possible interpretations and alternative explanations of the information they are given. Actually, I believe that teaching students to assess scientific claims is a vital, and often missing, part of education. I am aware that most of my students far preferred answering multiple-choice questions to writing a logically constructed essay that required application of the knowledge gained in class. But lasting benefit from education can only be achieved if the students learn to apply the knowledge they gain. We all know that memorized information is gone within a few weeks.
A person who opposes teaching the controversy about evolution once asked me if I would support hiring a PhD who questions heliocentrism. I assume the questioner had not thought of what is readily apparent—we have photos. But, taking the question seriously, I would think that scientific integrity would demand that, if this person (let's call him Fred) were teaching, he teach all the astronomy basics—whether they support his personal views or not. If there is data that is a problem for the heliocentric view, why not include that? Of course, Fred should also include the information that supports the view of the scientific community and honestly tell the students that the consensus among scientists is heliocentrism. But I do not see any reason why, at the college level, Fred could not also briefly let the students know that he disagrees with the consensus view. If he taught the rest of the course accurately, the students should be able to figure out for themselves whether Fred's ideas are worth considering. As I said before, even Yale University acknowledges the value of controversy in learning. At the college level, one should be encouraging students to think about and apply what they learn, not just memorize everything they are told.
Of course, there are problems with this idealized approach. It is never possible to give students ALL the information—after all, even the professor doesn't know everything. This is compounded by the fact that some perfectly valid work is never published, and not for scientific reasons. Taking an example that is more familiar to me than heliocentrism, a 2008 study by Turner et al. found that in an analysis of 74 FDA-registered studies on anti-depressants, 97% of those that the FDA judged had positive results were published. But, of those that the FDA found had negative results for the study, only 8% were published as negative and 30% were skewed to look positive. This is very consistent with my experience while doing research in asthma. If the medication did not work as well as the company funding the studies hoped, we were not allowed to publish. Unfortunately, it appears that this problem is not unique to my field, making providing students with all the information practically impossible—it is just not available. But, we can at least train them to think critically and be able to evaluate "scientific" claims.
Another issue, and one that I am coming up against more and more, is that some people abdicate their responsibility to think and just believe what they are told or what they want to believe. Maybe this is because many colleges train students to memorize instead of think, but it is a dangerous situation: there are a lot of "quacks" out there. How does one distinguish between a theory that may be scientifically valid but not yet accepted and a theory that is just crazy or confused? For example, I recently read Stop Inflammation Now, a book written by an Iowan cardiologist who expounds on how his lifestyle plan will prevent inflammation and heart attacks. The book contained a combination of truth, lies, and ignorance. Some aspects of his program did make sense; reducing carbohydrates and fat in our diet does lead to increased cardiovascular health. But the cardiologist confused interleukins and leukotrienes, a sure red flag for an immunologist like me, so the book certainly contained scientific inaccuracies. Other aspects of his recommendations were just plain dangerous and would lead to malnutrition, osteoporosis, etc. The problem is how do we protect folks who do not know the science from some of the more outlandish assertions out there? A related problem is that, even when I told the person who sent me the book that it was full of inaccuracies, she did not believe me because she "feels better." How can one argue with that kind of logic, which is akin to Fred saying that it looks like the sun is going around the earth? We need to encourage and enable people to think critically. This is why AITSE published its principles for detecting scientific bunk.
Finally, we all know that science "evolves." What is accepted as true changes over time and, theoretically, mistakes will eventually be corrected. But this process is delayed when we are not allowed to challenge the current consensus view. Allowing questioning is not comfortable because ensuring that integrity in science is maintained will then be complicated—especially given that the peer review system is very fallible. Take the recent exposure of cheating by the Dutch scientist, Diederik Stapel, who published over 30 peer-reviewed articles containing falsified data. Personally, I think the potential scientific progress that may be accomplished by people who are taught and encouraged to think critically makes it worth striving for a system that honors the work that has been done, acknowledges the scientific consensus, and allows dissenters a voice. After all, it was said that the light bulb would never catch on!
TBS: You are a sought-after speaker on scientific integrity. What are the typical sorts of "gigs" that you do? What is your main take-home message? How can you be contacted if someone wants you to speak for them?
ICC: Right now I offer a variety of single talks surrounding the topic of integrity in science (see some of them below). I also do weekend conferences, which include a package of several talks, small group readings and questions, and more. My main goal is to provide education to enhance scientific understanding and integrity, but since I am a Christian, I am also very willing to address Christian groups about the proper relationship between science and faith. I have spoken in all kinds of venues, addressing university groups, professional groups, church groups, youth groups, and even Congressmen. I can be contacted via the booking form that can be accessed on the AITSE website.
Integrity in Science and Medicine: Why Does it Matter? "Why should I care about integrity in science and medicine? I'm a … business person, lawyer, homemaker, teacher, pastor, student. This is just not relevant to my life." In this enlightening lecture, Dr. Crocker shows how lack of scientific integrity jeopardizes our health, prosperity and even faith as a nation. Cheating is endemic in schools so that students neither learn the facts nor are able to apply what they learn. Censorship is rife in academia so that educators are not allowed to teach both sides of controversial subjects. The financial interests of the funders control research and publication so that healthcare providers are limited in their search for accurate information. Politics drive much of what is considered valid science so that the public rarely has access to the complete story. A return to scientific integrity is vital.
Science and Medicine in a Crisis of Integrity. Are the medications you are taking beneficial or harmful to your health? Can you trust the expertise of your physician? What about your pharmacist? Where can one go to obtain accurate information about this important subject? The fact is that Americans are losing their trust in science and medicine—with reason. Science has been corrupted for political, financial and ideological reasons, and the result is devastating. In this serious talk, Dr. Crocker presents frightening statistics on common medications and shows how lack of integrity in science jeopardizes our health as a nation. The facts are grim, but she does not leave the audience in despair, going on to outline the work of American Institute for Technology and Science Education in bringing positive change to science by increasing awareness of the need for integrity—so we will once again be able to trust the "experts".
Cheating and Censorship in Science—Where is the Integrity in Academia? First presented at a legislative briefing in Washington DC, this lecture gives unequivocal evidence that, starting with elementary school and following all the way through postgraduate education, academia is being corrupted by a crisis of integrity. Student cheating, from full-blown plagiarism to sharing homework answers to passing out stolen exams, is tolerated all the way through school and even beyond. The restriction of educators to only teaching politically correct, financially beneficial, or ideologically attractive "facts" exacerbates this problem. In this enlightening talk, Dr. Crocker asserts that the solution to this problem is surprisingly simple. Cheating is decreased when students are encouraged to learn, understand and evaluate what they are taught. We need to allow students to learn, educators to teach, and the public to be free to think!
Free to Think--or Not? This informative talk is suited for all audiences; no science background is necessary. Beginning with an exploration of the nature of freedom, Dr. Crocker shows that science in America is no longer free. We have been taken hostage by politics, finance and false religion. After giving much evidence of how those who question the scientific "consensus" view are persecuted, Dr. Crocker then explores the consequences of this stranglehold on science for our health, economic success, and religious views as a society. She ends with a plea for a return to scientific integrity, leaving the audience with hope for the future as she gives information on how they can help make this happen: a call to action for the good of our nation.
Evolution and Intelligent Design: What's the Fuss? Have you ever wondered why people get so angry about evolution, creation, intelligent design, etc.? In this fascinating presentation, the reason for the antagonism is explored and questions are asked: Is evolution fact, fiction or religion? What is neoDarwinism? What is intelligent design? Is it fact, fiction, or religion? What is science anyway? What about religion? Dr. Crocker carefully disentangles the religion from the science and invites the audience to think through these matters for themselves. Although this talk does include some science, participant surveys indicate that it is highly accessible and suitable for high school, university, and church audiences.
The Evolution and Extinction of a Teacher. Illustrated with highly-entertaining cartoons by talented teen Ayden Lopez, this presentation has a serious side. Dr. Crocker begins by describing her journey to becoming a teacher recognized for teaching excellence using amusing anecdotes from Free to Think. However, the talk then takes a sober turn when she explains how giving one lecture that impartially provided both evidence for evolution and some of the problems with that evidence resulted in the loss of her job, her legal representation, and her career. Since hers is not an isolated case and lack of scientific integrity affects all our lives, this talk is a must for teachers, church audiences, and indeed anyone who is interested in academic freedom.
TBS: You head up an organization called AITSE (American Institute for Technology and Science Education). Tell us what moved you to start AITSE? Your concern with AITSE is scientific integrity generally rather than just focusing on certain hot-button topics. How big a problem is scientific integrity (or the lack thereof)? Most scientists will tell you that science is self-correcting and that scientists can by-and-large be trusted. Is that true across the board? How are scientists subject to temptation?
ICC: The slogan for AITSE is "Good science: based on evidence, not consensus." But this intentionally short phrase does need a little bit of unpacking. After all, science is not just evidence, but also interpretation of that evidence—and many scientists together—a consensus—decide the value of the interpretation. However, it is important for people to realize that this system has inherent problems. For example, some scientists fail to distinguish between interpretation of data and speculation about or extrapolation from data (which can be and often is inaccurate). Others are so desperate for their papers to fit with the consensus views that they ignore or bury inconsistent data. As I said earlier, what a scientist reports will affect whether they get grants, tenure, and are published. Even though most scientists are genuine people sincerely seeking advances in their area of science, they are human: subject to the same temptations, errors in judgment, and even deliberate closed-mindedness as the rest of us. But the consequences of lapses in integrity are exponentially larger when they occur in science, engineering, and medicine.
I have experience as a medical research scientist working on grants from pharmaceutical companies, a professor working with students, an expelled scientist, and just a citizen. I know that when data are not favorable to the company funding the work, some companies use a confidentiality clause to prevent publication. I have seen numerous students cheat in their classes—undergraduates, postgraduates, and medical students, and am aware that many professors do not report or even discourage this practice. In some cases, they are cheating, too. Of course, the subject of Free to Think is that a more intentional breach of scientific integrity is also active in the schools, namely the suppression of information that might allow students to critically assess the evidence for controversial subjects. Finally, as an observant and concerned citizen, I see breaches in scientific integrity when companies make their product seem better than it is in order to get as large a market share as possible. There is a great, if trivial, example in many supermarkets: cotton candy being advertised as a low fat and cholesterol-free food. Well, it is. But the intended message for the consumer was that it is a healthy product—even though clearly it is not!
Most people are aware that science, like most human endeavors, is influenced by politics, financial considerations, power, etc. This is amply demonstrated by the global warming debate, the controversy on the relationship between autism and vaccination, and in the delays in dealing with Duke University's Dr. Anil Potti, whose cancer research went unchallenged for years because he and two firms to which his university had ties stood to benefit from his work. Obviously, we cannot completely reverse this situation, but I believe it is important that the public be aware that science is not infallible and scientists are not gods. When the television authoritatively asserts, "Experts agree, Physicians recommend, Scientists say," the public needs to know that these powers can be and often are wrong. For their part in this, scientists need to assess and present data impartially, not giving undue weight to what may be outdated theories, politics, financial considerations, and even religious preferences.
American Institute for Technology and Science Education (AITSE) was founded in 2009 with the goal of helping to liberate science and technology in general from ideology, politics, and the illusion that consensus views are as reliable as many people believe them to be. We have now gathered a group of first-rate scientists, physicians, and engineers (about 30 to date) to work together to improve science education and increase awareness about the need for more scientific integrity. This number is increasing as more and more science professionals become aware of our work and concerned about breaches in scientific integrity. AITSE seeks to advance honest, ethical, and beneficial scientific progress and give people accurate information and the tools to assess scientific claims for themselves. If anyone wants to know more, they can check us out on our website, on Facebook, or on Twitter. Or they could sign up for our monthly newsletter by texting AITSE to 22828.
TBS: AITSE, in its very name, mirrors the premier organization promoting biological evolution, namely, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Did you choose the name AITSE as a challenge to the NCSE? How would you contrast AITSE with the NCSE?
ICC: The purpose of AITSE is to promote good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus. The purpose of NCSE is to promote the consensus view on evolution and squash any hint of dissension—no impartial evaluation of evidence allowed. As such, there is really no commonality between our goals. The only possible similarity between AITSE and NCSE would be in our mutual focus on education. But, again, NCSE has a very narrow educational focus since they want to educate on one subject and on only one point of view about that issue. In comparison, AITSE encourages people to think about the scientific evidence on a range of topics. We have solicited input from scientists, physicians, and engineers coming from a variety of viewpoints on controversial matters—not that all actually contribute. But, since scientific integrity requires telling the whole story, our doors are open. Our goal is for the evidence to be evaluated, not to fit scientific evidence into a prior worldview which, in the case of NCSE's president Eugenie Scott, is humanistic naturalism.
TBS: You are a Christian, and yet recently you've had disagreements with two Christian groups that promote biological evolution: the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) and Francis Collins's BioLogos. Can you tell us what your concerns are with these organizations?
ICC: Well, I would not put it quite so strongly as to call them disagreements, but I do admit that I have challenged both organizations.
My concern with the ASA was that at their July 2011 conference the speakers were not practicing what the organization preaches. Basically, ASA says that they have "no official position on evolution," but the content of several of the talks and the attitude of some of the speakers at the conference failed to embrace this commitment. For example, a speaker at the ASA meeting is on record as saying that anyone who does not accept all aspects of evolutionary theory is "scientifically and theologically illiterate." His paper was on how 15 Christian students moved from an "immature Young Earth perspective" with "little tolerance for ambiguity" to an "adult faith" that can "accommodate degrees of dissonance" after accepting the "authority" of the "trained evolutionist" professor. Take home message: If one questions aspects of evolution or thinks outside the box delineated by authoritative figures, one is an immature Christian and, of course, a scientific moron!
In fact, the ASA appeared to be ostracizing scientists who question all kinds of consensus science. As a result, science-based reservations about evolution and other controversial topics were not openly discussed. My suggestion was that this incivility from the podium be curbed so that the ASA will provide, as they claim they already do, an "open forum" where ideas can be "discussed without fear of unjust condemnation." After all, where the leaders lead, the flock soon follows. One of the responders to my post, Timaeus, summarized my position very accurately: "Dr. Crocker is concerned less about the nominal beliefs of the organization and more about the attitudes which she finds among some of its members [and leaders], attitudes which in her view are affecting the institution's behavior and hence its mission."
One of my primary concerns with BioLogos has little to do with AITSE and more to do with my Christian faith. That is, I object to BioLogos's often liberal interpretations of the Bible but, since I am not a theologian and this interview is about science, not religion, I will say no more about that.
However, I am also aware that, because BioLogos has an agenda, which is the same as NCSE's (to promote acceptance of evolutionary theory), they have a tendency to distort science to fit their preconceived ideas. Evidence of this is readily apparent in their founder Francis Collins's assertions in The Language of God (pp. 136--137), that the presence of "junk" DNA provides verification for common ancestry. This scientific inaccuracy is nicely analyzed and debunked in The Myth of Junk DNA. I address another instance of slanting of science to fit a lock-step position when I responded to Kathryn Applegate's description of the parallels between adaptive evolution and immunity. Her post on the BioLogos website even contained several scientific mistakes—hardly surprising when one realizes that she is not an immunologist. The beauty of AITSE's position is that we are free to consider the scientific evidence for what it is—we have no agenda, apart from that of promoting integrity in science.
TBS: What organizations have you worked with most closely that have proven to be your best allies? How helpful are they in promoting scientific integrity? Comment on the Discovery Institute. Does it support your work?
ICC: AITSE is working with individuals in at least ten organizations, all of which are valuable allies and resonate with our goal of promoting education and integrity in science. I am glad you asked about Discovery Institute since I am often asked if I work for them or have any role in that organization. The answer is, "no." I am friendly with a number of individuals at Discovery, but am also friendly with people in many other non-profit organizations. Similarly, there is no official relationship between AITSE and Discovery Institute, or indeed any other nonprofit organization.
The team at AITSE believes in cooperation, not competition, to achieve one's goals. Therefore, if we agree with what an organization does, AITSE does what they can to help them, including advertising their relevant events and referring any of our contacts who may be helpful to their cause. Discovery Institute and other organizations like American Freedom Alliance, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Probe Ministries, Gateways to Better Education, Family Action PAC, Breakpoint, various universities, various churches, and individuals at the American Scientific Affiliation reciprocate and the relationship is mutually beneficial.
TBS: Where to from here? What are some of your main projects right now? What do you hope will be some of your main projects down the road? If they succeed, how much difference could they make? How can people help facilitate the work of AITSE?
ICC: Since AITSE incorporated in 2009 we have been steadily working towards fulfilling our stated mission. AITSE membership has now grown to nearly 500 individuals and we anticipate that many more will join us once our upcoming membership campaign has been launched. We have followers on Facebook, Twitter, and our extensive website and also communicate using an informative monthly newsletter and by publishing articles in popular magazines and blog posts. In addition, AITSE has been gathering a diverse range of scientists, physicians, and engineers to participate in AITSE's scientific consortium. These highly qualified professionals write articles for the monthly newsletter, address current scientific questions and debates, develop appropriate materials for use on the AITSE web site, are available as AITSE speakers, and oversee AITSE projects. We now have 29 participating consortium members, some of whom we invited and others who contacted us after realizing that AITSE welcomes those whom the consensus-bound scientific community may reject. This number is increasing as we gain public visibility, and we begin to actively pursue growth in this area.
To help advance these initiatives, we are now planning our first AITSE conference for scientists who want to be free to discuss scientific theories without fear of unjust condemnation. These people have communicated that they need more than encouragement; some of them have been working at this for a long time. Therefore, they need a place to meet, training in how to best educate the public on scientific issues, and support. American Institute for Technology and Science Education is such a place and can provide the training and support. Our vision is to promote good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus. Our mission is "… to improve science education and encourage scientific integrity" and "offer clear, reliable, and balanced education with the goal of liberating science and technology from ideology, politics, and the restrictions of consensus …"
Our plan is to increase the impact of AITSE in 2012 with a three-pronged strategy.
We will have a conference to equip scientists, physicians, and engineers of integrity with tools to increase scientific understanding in the general public, and to encourage them to continue their work in promoting integrity in science by giving them networking opportunities and strategies for engaging with other organizations and influencing our culture for good.
We will publish a book containing stories of scientists of integrity, thus making progress in putting to rest the lie that all people of intelligence subscribe to lock-step consensus science. Already we have established contact with half a dozen scientists who are willing to share their unique and exemplary narratives.
We are exploring making this book into a first-class movie so that we can reach more people with our message that good science needs to be based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus. If successful, this movie could catalyze a change in science and medical education so that students are encouraged to think and apply instead of just memorize.
To achieve these goals, we need help. I want to encourage scientists, physicians, and engineers reading this interview to join the AITSE consortium and commit themselves to healing any infection in their branch of the tree of science. Members of the public I would encourage to sign up for our monthly newsletter, "like" our Facebook page, invite me to speak to your group, and spread the word. Finally, it almost goes without saying that none of this is possible without funding. Consider donating to AITSE or even becoming an AITSE partner by committing to a monthly contribution. The movement to increase scientific integrity in our nation in not merely academic. Promoting integrity in science, engineering, and medicine saves lives, perhaps the life of someone you love.


It had been rumored for months, and now it's official: Rachel McAdams will play the female lead in the second season of HBO's True Detective.
Since the end of the summer we've learned that Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughn, and Taylor Kitsch have all agreed to prominent roles in the upcoming second season of 2014's most talked-about drama. Creator Nic Pizzolatto had previously divulged that the new season, which will take place in California, would also feature a female lead, and McAdams had long been the frontrunner to land the role.
According to a press release, McAdams's character of Sheriff Ani Bezzeridesis is a "Ventura County Sheriff's detective whose uncompromising ethics put her at odds with the system she serves." She also reportedly has drinking and gambling problems, so it will be interesting to see how McAdams is able to inhabit a more troubled character than she's accustomed to playing.
One of the most common criticisms of True Detective's first season was its lack of a strong female presence. We have a feeling Bezzeridesis isn't going to be the type to get steamrolled by her male counterparts.


text:
Deep inside the Bu$hes
by Bob » Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:31 am
This article is slightly dated, but it gives an excellent and in depth view of the treasonous ways of the Bu$h family that goes back four generations. What a "patriotic" bunch! Yeah, right.
A Government of Thieves
More than four years after "9/11"
*Osama Bin Laden is still alive, free and dangerous
* so is his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, the "brains" of Al Qaeda
*even the Taliban leader Mullah Omar has not been captured.
Yet President Bush seems uninterested in Osama Bin Laden these days. Instead he has since started a new war in which over two thousand four hundred Americans have died and more than seventeen thousand have been wounded, while many thousands of Iraqi civilians have perished. The US military is bogged down in a growing guerilla conflict, bringing more civilian casualties and misery to the Iraqi people every day. Meanwhile the USA, which commanded unprecedented world sympathy after 9/11, has now become perhaps the most disliked and even hated nation on earth.
Is this situation merely the result of incompetent leadership, or is there a more sinister flaw in the Bush presidency? Is there a hidden history of the Bushes that a timid US mass media has generally failed to notify to the American people, and the wider world? Here we present some of the evidence that we believe every American, British and Australian voter should be aware of.
Part One - the Scandal of the Bushes
The Bush family - a cascade of fortunes and political careers founded on arms profiteering, continued on Nazi-derived earnings, advanced by Saudi oil & Bin Laden connections, sustained by business fraud and now benefiting from a war they themselves started. Should a leader be blamed for the sins of his ancestors? No, if that is the simple question, but yes, if he shows no contrition, continues to profit from them and goes on to do more of the same.
Is George Walker Bush fit to be President, and are the group around him fit to govern?
You be the judge.
1. Samuel Prescott Bush (1863 -1948)
Samuel Bush
Early Days
The founder of the modern Bush dynasty was Samuel Prescott Bush, an Ohio steel executive, whose Buckeye Steel Castings Co. business projects included making parts for the Harriman railway empire. Before becoming President of Buckeye (1905-1927), Samuel Bush held a railroad position in Pennsylvania. He was the son of the Rev. James Smith Bush and Harriet Fay. Samuel graduated from the Stevens Institute of Technology in 1884, and ten years later married Flora Sheldon, with whom he had four surviving children, Prescott, Mary, Margaret and James. Of these his son Prescott Sheldon Bush was to be his father's dynastic successor. Samuel's money was not to give him immunity from personal tragedy however, for his wife Flora was to be killed when struck by a car in 1920. Samuel later remarried Martha Bell Carter of Milwaukee.
For many years Samuel was a leading member of the National Association of Manufacturers, and for a time was President of the Ohio Manufacturer's Association. Later he was to be an advisor to the disastrous Depression-era President Herbert Hoover on business and unemployment issues. He began the Bush family's abiding interest in golf, baseball, tennis and football. His old company Buckeye Steel endured for many years, but under new ownership filed for bankruptcy reorganization in Dec. 2002.
After the US entered World War I in April 1917, Samuel Bush obtained a position as head of the War Industries Board's Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section. This is surprising, considering he had no background in armaments. There was a hidden logic. As an apparent 'cleanskin' suitable for a sensitive official position, Bush already had powerful patrons eager to put his name forward. We can note for example Frank and Percy Rockefeller, whose famous family had moved to gain control of the Remington Arms Company in 1914. (Frank Rockefeller, a brother of clan head John D. Rockefeller, was the previous President of Buckeye Steel).
Then there was a certain George Sheldon, a director of the huge Bethlehem Steel Corp., which like Remington benefited enormously from World War I. George Sheldon was also a vice-president of the Navy League, which was subsidised by steel & arms makers to agitate for a massive naval expansion advantageous to them.
Finally, the War Industries Board was itself headed by Bernard M. Baruch, a Wall St. speculator who had close personal and business ties to E.H. Harriman, father of the closest friend of Bush's son Prescott at Yale. Sometimes the associations of their children can bring advancement to parents just as readily as the reverse. In Samuel Bush's later years he was to remain closely associated with the high-flying Baruch. In the America of the day, big money stuck together closer than clotted cream.
So the link between the Bushes, war, patriotism and profits was now firmly established through an informal network of influence. It has continued ever since.
The Merchants of Death
The period following the Civil War in the US and the Franco-Prussian War in Europe opened both a great general industrial expansion and the largest explosion of arms manufacturing ever known until the modern era. It was a time of huge fortunes being built by ruthless industrialists and bankers. These gentlemen, later styled the "robber barons" by historians, look little better than gangsters in retrospect. However many of them founded family dynasties whose descendants were to become not only rich but also eminently respectable. In some cases, like that of the Carnegies and the Rockefellers, much of their fortunes were later to be used worldwide for considerable good. In other cases, like the Bush family, the further accumulation of money and power remained the primary goal.
The most evil aspect of the unregulated free-for-all that characterised the 1865 -1914 period of rapid industrial expansion was the development of an arms trade which did not just sell weapons but actively promoted war tensions and conflict to do so. The "trick of the trade" then for the arms manufacturers was to manufacture not just munitions but also regular "threats" and war scares. The idea was to keep populations supportive of greater expenditures on arms, and to prevent effective political challenge to those who advocated spending ever more taxes on weapons.
Fear was in fact the greatest weapon the arms dealers peddled. And they had no compunction about firing it from the shortest range possible. An example of their cynicism in action was shown as early as 1879, when the Remington Arms Co. was selling ammunition to both Russia and Turkey when they were at war with each other. Closer to home, they sold rifles to Cuban revolutionaries and at the same time ammunition to the Spanish Govt. fighting them.
Remington later topped this when Colombia and Venezuela were at war, but both states were also facing civil insurrections. There Remington achieved a quadruple sales bonanza by having all four parties firing at each other with Remington rifles loaded with Remington UMC bullets.
In Bullets we Trust
Beginning in 1894 an international arms cartel was formed, enabling leading arms manufacturers to jointly exploit markets worldwide without the annoyance of risking undercutting each other's profits. Disguised under the innocuous title of the Harvey United Steel Co., the "Harvey Syndicate" brought together many leading arms majors. The largest of these were UK firms Vickers Ltd. & Armstrong-Whitworth; from Germany Krupps and Dillingen, France's huge Schneider Co., Italy's Terni and from the USA Bethlehem Steel. Some of the companies had numerous national subsidiaries or associated businesses with interlocking directorships, and behind them stood big bankers such as John Pierpont Morgan. The companies sold in all markets to friend or potential foe, without reservation. Yet within their home countries each put their efforts forward as the essence of patriotism.
Arms panics in 1889 & 1892-3 created by agents of the weapons manufacturers resulted in huge surges of military spending in Britain and France, kicking off a corresponding rise in Germany. This tactic was regularly and successfully repeated, often by the deliberate spreading of false or misleading information about what potential or actual enemies were doing. Weapons agents sallied back and forth between national leaders and governments, intentionally provoking them in turn. The resulting arms race made Europe a "powderkeg" ready for the fatal conflagration that occurred in 1914, the most disastrous and bloody war in all human history.
The League of Rascals
This period saw the first real establishment of the "military-industrial complex" President Dwight D. Eisenhower was later to warn against. In his 1961 farewell address to the American people, perhaps after reflecting sombrely on what was casually revealed during his many golf matches with Samuel Bush's son Prescott, Eisenhower cautioned: " we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
What he meant was a network of arms makers, politicians, military officers, bankers, media owners and compliant journalists who together could distort the whole policy of a nation for their own selfish advantage. Of course the USA was not unique in such corruption - in "Mother England" things were equally as bad in the run-up to the Great War.
In Britain, after arms manufacturers successfully fooled the public with the "big Navy Scare " of 1909, rampant behind- the-scenes corruption burst into the public view for the first time when Vickers Ltd. was caught out bribing Rear Admiral Fujii of the Imperial Japanese Navy, to place an order with their company for the construction of warships. Visiting Canadian Government ministers Sir Frederick Borden and Louis Brodeur were also shocked by a Vickers official who told them "the Empire is going to the dogs for lack of a war and, worst of all, there is not even one small war in prospect". Vickers's roving salesman, the sinister Sir Basil Zaharoff, received extraordinary "expenses" and "special commissions", enabling him to bribe foreign officials with considerable success.
An analysis in 19l1 by a financial paper found 13 members of Parliament, 43 military/naval officers and 17 newspaper owners and journalists on the boards of directors of three leading arms makers. The highly respected retired Civil Service and Treasury head, Lord Welby of Allington, was so angered by all this that he declared "We are in the hands of an organisation of crooks. They are the politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure and go on inventing scares to terrify the public...".
The situation he spoke of bears an uncanny resemblance to the present Washington government of George W. Bush, where both politicians and military personnel move freely back and forth from public employ to highly paid positions with defence contractors, under the cover of enthusiastic media endorsements, all with the inevitable -and to them welcome -consequences** (see Part Two).
In 1913 the great arms cartel fell apart, and the arms makers began competing open slather with each other. Within a year Europe was at war.
The "Great War" - gas masks, trench slaughter , misery and - money for jam
World War I was enormously beneficial for the rich of America. Twenty-one thousand new millionaires were created. Du Pont stock became fifty times more valuable, and the banker J.P. Morgan became rich beyond his wildest imaginings. In 1917 Bethlehem Steel paid a dividend of an astounding 200% of its stock (share) value.
Selling munitions to Europe was a major part of this earnings boom. Under war conditions the opportunities to engage in profiteering were far greater than usual, and were eagerly seized upon. European munitions purchases from the USA rose from $40 million in 1914 to $2,340 million in 1918, for a war total of over four billion dollars (worth many times more in today's values). US entry into the war in April 1917 also created a home-grown bonanza for the arms makers.
In his new official position Samuel Bush helped organise munitions for the US Government's war effort, and channeled Government assistance to needy weapon makers (though why they needed it was a profound mystery to outsiders). Although only a relative 'small fry' in business himself, he was now perfectly placed to give the nod to particularly profitable contracts for others and receive "kickbacks" in return, from transactions that were handily shrouded in wartime secrecy. And sure enough, fat war contracts now flowed to Buckeye Steel. It was Samuel Prescott Bush, then, who began the long tradition of the" patriotic" Bushes, the proud American family who just happen to be always making money from war.
After World War I there were enquiries into the huge and senseless slaughter during that monstrous conflict, and into those who benefited by it. In one such, people such as Samuel Bush were labeled Merchants of Death when it became clear both that large armaments companies had deliberately fostered an arms race to stimulate their business and that some officials had conspired to assist their wholesale profiteering.
Strangely, most (but fortunately not all) of the detailed US records of the Samuel Bush wartime transactions later disappeared from the relevant Archives and have never been recovered. This pattern was not to be unique. The present President has busily censored damaging reports, tried to block enquiries, and sealed off many records from public scrutiny, some permanently. Wherever the Bushes have been, "cleaners" seem to follow them.
In 1944 Samuel Bush's Buckeye Steel was to be awarded a huge government arms contract, to make armor casings for shells. For a second time this Bush was to profit from" fighting the Germans", this time a Nazi state that his own son had been instrumental in founding and nourishing.
The revulsion that followed World War I led to attempts to regulate the arms trade, and prevent arms dealers from ever again entering into corrupt alliances with politicians and military personnel. Today, however, under the Presidency of George W. Bush the appalling situation that existed prior to W.W.I now prevails again in America. A Government of "war from business and business from war" now controls the world's only superpower. And once more the Bush family thrives as others suffer and die. Let's continue the full story with the next generation of the Bush family.
2. Prescott Sheldon Bush (1895 -1972)
father of President George Herbert Walker Bush
grandfather of current President George Walker Bush.
Prescott Bush
Prescott Soldiers On
*By the time Prescott Bush was a teenager, the Bushes were sufficiently established to be regarded as part of the aspirational elite who were shaping the new, booming economy of the United States in the early twentieth century. Although regarded by some as still a "minor league" family in the New England aristocracy of wealth and power, their children were now able to attend the "right" schools and universities, and be in a position to advance further should the opportunities arise.
Prescott Bush attended Yale University. There the tall (6 ft 4 in), athletic and handsome young man formed an advantageous close friendship with E. Roland "Bunny" Harriman, younger son of the immensely wealthy Harriman family. "Bunny's" father, railroad baron & stock broker E.H.Harriman was denounced by President Theodore Roosevelt as an "undesirable citizen" guilty of "deep-seated corruption" for issuing tens of millions of dollars of fraudulent railroad stock; but Harriman had managed to keep the cash and become one of America's richest men.
As a close chum of "Bunny" Harriman, Prescott was "tapped" (recruited) with him for the infamous
Skull and Bones Society, whose many wealthy and well-placed "Patriarch" graduates were to assist him throughout his rise in life.
The Tomb, New Haven
At a number of private US colleges there are "secret societies" where the children of the rich form hidden and often snobbish cliques, to establish lifelong networks of advantage. Some of these groups practise bizarre initiations, regular group bonding ceremonies with weird mumbo-jumbo rituals, and the usual extreme horseplay of overprivileged adolescents with time on their hands. Of all these the most powerful and secretive is the Skull and Bones Society of Yale.
Founded by the scion of an opium trader, Skull and Bones is notorious for its focus on death rituals and perverse sexual interrogation. The group houses a collection of stolen skulls and other macabre objects - reputedly including Hitler's silverware - in its windowless headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut, a building known to members as the Tomb. Outsiders are never permitted entry, and those attempting to investigate Skull and Bones may be discouraged by subtle or less than subtle means.
The Skull and Bones society is immensely wealthy. For example it possess its own private island (Deer Island) with an exclusive "retreat", and owns much property at Yale. Members include many leading corporate and financial figures, senior lawyers and justices, some ranking FBI and CIA personnel (the CIA has been a haven of Bonesmen), and politicians. Both President's Bush are "Patriarchs" (graduate members) of Skull and Bones, many of whose alumni have assisted and protected their family's rise from the days of Prescott Bush at Yale. "Bonesmen", as with similar networks, are sworn to assist each other wherever possible in life. However in the real world they sometimes become enemies or even political rivals. The current President Bush has appointed at least eleven "Bonesmen" to important positions.
The Geronimo Incident
*Prescott Bush graduated BA from Yale in 1917. He had enlisted in the Connecticut National Guard in 1916 and then attended US Army Officer training. Now he joined the army as a captain of field artillery, and in 1918 was posted to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. There, with fellow Skull and Bones members Neil Mallon, Ellery James and four other novice captain accomplices, he led a grave-robbing incident involving the remains of the famous Chiricahua Apache chief Geronimo, who had been buried at Fort Sill in 1909.
Geronimo's skull, elbow bone and some belongings were taken to the Tomb (Skull & Bones HQ) in New Haven, and are evidently still there, on display in a glass cage. Despite Apache grievance, law enforcement officers have never entered the Tomb to reclaim them, so powerful is the Skull and Bones in the legal and judicial worlds (most members in any case regard it as their duty to deceive outsiders to protect their secrets).
Postscript: An attempt to negotiate a settlement to this shameful issue with Jonathan Bush, President George H. W. Bush's brother, in NYC in 1986 ended without agreement, and the Skull and Bones Society lawyer Endicott P. Davison then blandly denied all, despite the existence of substantial physical evidence supplied by a "Bonesman" with a conscience. In the Bush world, truth is what you can get away with.
With Prescott gone off to play soldier boy, his chum E. Roland "Bunny" Harriman hurriedly married a Miss Gladys Fries. It's interesting to note that although he and Prescott were frequently in each other's company throughout their lives thereafter, neither managed to attend the other's wedding. The newlyweds then departed for Washington, for Roland in a singular coincidence had secured a position in the War Department in connection with munitions ordnance, the same area of occupation as that of Prescott's father Samuel Bush.
Don't Mention the War
*Later in 1918 Captain Prescott Bush was sent to the European War, by now running towards its last bloody days. He was attached to the 158th Field Artillery Brigade in France, and later to the occupation forces in Germany. When evidently bored from a lack of wartime "action", Bush amused himself & he thought his readers by writing a humorous letter in which he claimed to have been awarded the Victoria Cross, the Legion of Honor, and the Distinguished Service Cross, under circumstances that were clearly preposterous.
However in the fevered war atmosphere of the time the letter was taken seriously, & published in a newspaper as factual. This led to a scandal as a result of which Bush was unable to remain in his hometown of Columbus Ohio when he returned there in mid 1919. The "phony war hero" label, though unjustified, was a permanent humiliation thereafter. However there is no evidence to support the view that bitterness over this incident pushed Bush towards Nazi sympathies.
*Now at a loose end, Bush attended the 1919 reunion of his Yale class, where fellow Skull & Bonesman Wallace Simmons offered him a job in his St. Louis, Missouri, railroad equipment company. Bush accepted, and moved to St. Louis, where his" fortunate connections" were soon to offer him further and better opportunities.
In 1919 wealthy Missouri corporate wheeler- dealer George Herbert Walker obliged the Harriman family patriarch by forming the W.A. Harriman & Co. private bank for the Harriman sons to have something to do. Walker, who took the posts of bank president and chief executive, was a "colourful" character, a former champion boxer whose hobbies were described as "golf, hunting, drinking scotch and beating his (four) sons to a pulp." However he was more polite towards the far richer Harrimans, whose elder son W. Averell Harriman was made chairman of the bank, and joint owner with his younger brother, Prescott's friend " Bunny".
At this time Prescott Bush met George Herbert Walker's daughter Dorothy, wooed her, & married her in 1921. They were to have four sons - George, Prescott Jr., Jonathan and William - and a daughter Nancy. With little success from his own business efforts, Bush was tapped by his old Yale chum "Bunny" to work firstly for the Harriman-controlled U.S. Rubber Co. in 1924, & then in 1926 directly for the W. A. Harriman bank itself.
In 1931 the Harriman bank was to merge with the British-American firm Brown Bros. and Co. to form Brown Brothers Harriman, with E.Roland Harriman as vice-president and Prescott Bush now a full partner. "Bert" Walker retired from the bank to his own G.H Walker & Co. Prescott Bush, who had gradually come to run the day-to-day operations of WA Harriman & Co., now became a managing partner of the merged entity. BBH was to be eventually the most important private banking house in America. Prescott Bush had reached the zone of serious money.
W (William) Averell Harriman, as a young man
W.Averell Harriman was the elder of the two heirs of railroad baron and stock market manipulator E H Harriman. The Harriman brothers were handsome, influential and immensely rich. Averell Harriman later formed an association with the Democratic Party, becoming at various times Governor of New York State, Ambassador to Moscow and Special Presidential Envoy. His brother remained a registered Republican. It is believed that embarrassment over Harriman's Democratic Party connections (resented by many in the party) is the reason the US Democratic Party has refused to raise the Bush-Harriman Nazi connections as an election issue, despite ample evidence.
Averell Harriman (centre), Special Presidential Envoy, with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, Moscow Conference, August 1942
The First Sniff of Oil
*As a result, Prescott also sat on several corporate boards alongside "Bunny" Harriman, including
(1929 -1952) Dresser Industries. Dresser was an oil equipment company, on whose board the pair installed Yale classmate Henry Neil Mallon as chairman. Mallon was a fellow Skull and Bonesman and one of the Geronimo grave-robbers. In 1948 Mallon was in turn to hire Prescott's son George Herbert Walker Bush, later the first President Bush, to work at Dresser. (George H.W. Bush later named one of his own sons, Neil Mallon Bush). In September 1998, Dresser merged with Halliburton, a company much in the news recently.
The Bushes, the Walkers, the Harrimans and their connections remained close socially as well as in business. If we dip into the New York Times social pages of December 12 1941 for example we see the annual "Gay Thirties Dinner Dance" for charity being held on the Starlight Roof of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. At this event we find that the rollcall includes E.Roland "Bunny" Harriman present as President of the Boys' Club of New York, and the Prescott Bushes as guests at his table.
Another glance at the NYT shows a wedding on November 11 1950 uniting a Miss Marie Abbie Walker, daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Charles Herbert Walker, with a John Malcolm Lilley, late of Yale. One of the bridesmaids is a Joan Harriman. The bridegroom, it transpires, is an employee of the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil Co. and the grandson of a Samuel Bush.
The German Ships
*Meanwhile in 1920 the Harrimans had initiated their "German connection", relaunching Germany's Hamburg-Amerika Line, whose steamships the Harrimans had somehow acquired after the ships were confiscated by the US at the end of WWI. They now took a half share in the line, & until 1940 had complete control of the US end.
At the other end was to be Baron Rudolph von Schroeder, vice president and director of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, treasurer of the support organization for the Nazi Party's private armies and a gentleman who sent his grandson Baron Johann Rudolph for a tour of Prescott Bush's Brown Brothers Harriman offices in New York City in December 1932, shortly before Hitler took power in Germany.
When the elected German government tried (unsuccessfully) to make the Nazi Party private armies disband in 1932, the Hamburg-Amerika Line distributed propaganda attacks against it for doing so. After the Nazi takeover, Hamburg-Amerika was henceforth to provide free passage to individuals going abroad for Nazi propaganda and spying purposes, to subsidise pro-Nazi newspapers in the USA, and in general act as a conduit for the Nazi cause.
Bush, Soviet Russia, the Thyssens and the Nazi Connection
*But shipping was just the beginning. WA Harriman & Co. linked with the Hamburg-based Warburg bank to make widespread investments in the new German Republic in the 1920s. Germany was then democratic, but from Berlin they also made huge secretive oil & mining deals with Soviet Russia through commissar Leon Trotsky and KGB founder Felix Dzerzhinsky, helping advance the Soviet state so detested out loud at the time by the Republican Party.
The start of the Great Depression saw heavy financial losses by both Bush and the Harrimans. Indeed Prescott Bush was soon in deep water as a partner. The German Government's moratorium on debt repayments put his own business accounts heavily into the red. The Harrimans had deep pockets though, & magnanimously compensated their protégé Prescott for his shortfalls. In the nature of bankers this was not a straightforward gift however, and relied on new income for the company to resolve the money owed, although Bush was also paid a generous salary to live on in the meantime.
Losses were not the name of the game for long, however. Despite the ruinous Depression there was still money to be made out there, and in Germany soon a whole new political order to make it from. Germany had given the Harrimans and Bush a problem, and Germany could resolve it. The opportunity was made the most of.
While in Berlin in 1922 W. Averell Harriman had become acquainted with leading German industrialist and steel magnate Fritz Thyssen, and agreed to set up a bank for Thyssen in New York. As a result the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) was established in August 1924 in the Manhattan offices of WA Harriman & Co., with George Herbert Walker as president.
Thyssen with Hitler
The UBC was no ordinary bank. It was a front in the US for Thyssen, who bankrolled & boosted Adolf Hitler from his early days of the beer hall "putsch" of 1923 onwards, and without whose money and support Hitler could not have come to power. Moreover the Thyssen industrial group became leading builders of the German war machine. In the end (late 1938) Thyssen, a Catholic, rejected Hitler and resigned his State positions after Hitler's murderous intentions towards the Jewish race (and any opposition) became crystal clear. Thyssen fled Germany in 1939. He was eventually arrested in France by the Vichy regime, intending to flee to South America but having failed to leave soon enough during the rapid fall of France, and was sent back to imprisonment in Germany. However his confiscated companies remained in Nazi hands and their Harriman-Bush connection continued as before.
Prescott Bush, his pal "Bunny" Harriman and six others were directors of the UBC from 1934 to 1943, wholly within the Nazi era. Moreover it was Prescott who ran the business day-to-day. Prescott and W. Averell Harriman were also the sole directors of the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, which occupied the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street New York (Prescott's father-in-law George Herbert Walker was the company president). Much of Harriman Fifteen's investments were in the Silesian Holding Company, which owned mining operations in Poland. In the Nazi era, Silesian was to boost its profits using slave labor from the death camps.
On 4 January 1933, in the midst of a political crisis and struggle for the Chancellorship in Germany, Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler and his crony Rudolf Hess met the influential politician Franz von Papen, a former Chancellor, at the office of merchant banker Kurt von Schroeder, in Cologne. Schroeder, some of whose other family connections are mentioned above, was amongst other things a co-director of theThyssen-Huautte foundry. The other co-director was Johann Groeninger, who also happened to be on the board of the Union Banking Corporation with Prescott Bush.
At this time the Nazi's funding was exhausted from fighting two general elections in seven months. As well, in the second of those elections the Nazi share of representatives elected to the Reichstag had fallen significantly (from 230 to 196). Yet Hitler emerged from this meeting with two trump cards. First, an understanding with von Papen that was to lead to Hitler assuming the Chancellorship on January 30. As a result, a murderous demagogue was soon able to seize dictatorial power, with appalling future consequences for humanity. Secondly, the Nazis received substantial funding to revitalise their party, from a source unknown.
Indeed no one since has ever been able to identify the source of this particular critical payment. For like many other trails of our investigation, any relevant paperwork has conveniently vanished. Given the von Schroeder connection however, there is an obvious candidate.
Fritz Thyssen
In his book "I Paid Hitler", published in several Allied countries in 1941 after his imprisonment by the Nazis he had now broken with, Thyssen confessed "For ten years before he came to power I supported Hitler and his party. I myself was a National Socialist (Nazi)". Much of the book is in fact a rather transparent attempt by Thyssen to distance himself from "Der Fuhrer" in retrospect, and downplay his own role while "dishing dirt" on other prominent figures of the era. However Thyssen did support Hitler financially from 1923, and in the critical 1930-33 period donated possibly over three million German marks to the Nazis (the amount is disputed & he admits only to a million, but there are no doubts the figure was substantial). In return Thyssen gained control of the German steel industry and was given high-sounding positions in the Nazi regime. His American operations were managed during the Nazi era by Prescott Bush, until seized by the US government in late 1942. After WWII Thyssen regained control of his companies, less a 15% "fine", but died in 1951 while visiting his daughter in Argentina.
If the Harrimans & Prescott Bush were not directly involved in promoting Hitler to power they were certainly remarkably quick to take advantage of the new situation. For in May 1933 negotiations were concluded in Berlin between Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's new economics minister, and a US international attorney (John Foster Dulles) to coordinate Nazi-American trade. Coincidentally or not, Kurt von Schroeder was one of the principal German advisers assisting this negotiation. A syndicate of 150 firms and individuals was formed as a result, and it was headed by none other than the Harriman International Company.
On the Side of the Enemy
*As war approached in Europe, Prescott Bush & the Harrimans continued to happily rake in the profits from various enterprises that were "in the possession of and have been operated by the (Nazi) German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country in its war effort" (as described in a US Govt. investigative report).
Bush held at least thirteen other directorships, including the board of the Simmons Company (later a major financial contributor to the campaigns of both Bush presidencies), the Continental Bank & Trust Company of New York, and United States Guaranty Trust. Why did Prescott Bush & the Harrimans not stick to those, and divest themselves of their Nazi connections, disassociate themselves once it was clear what was really happening in Germany? After all, even Thyssen himself had finally rejected Hitler.
But no, on the contrary the shameful truth is they went on during the 1930's as if nothing was changed, and continued to make money from banking for the Nazis, and from being closely involved with the companies that were building the German military might that was to overrun Europe and threaten to annihilate free Western civilisation.
After Germany invaded Poland, the US Govt. blocked Nazi payments to the Silesian-American Corporation's US bondholders. Undeterred, George Herbert Walker tried three times to arrange subterfuge schemes so the money could come in through Switzerland. The next year (1940), the UBC's US assets were frozen, so Prescott Bush & the Harrimans tended to the Thyssen US affairs allegedly for nothing, as a gesture to their client. It seems unlikely that they were not well compensated later, after Thyssen was freed.
Once US soldiers were dying in a war for which the Thyssen companies were providing much of the physical means, the US authorities could no longer stomach what was in effect treason. After October 20 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. Government ordered the seizure of Nazi German operations in the US. Companies seized that Prescott Bush was heavily involved with included the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation & the Silesian-American Corporation. All property of the Hamburg-Amerika Line had already been sequestered two months before.
W. Averell Harriman was also chairman of the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, an American group owning one-third of a complex of steel-making, coal-mining and zinc-mining activities in Germany and Poland, in which one Friedrich Flick owned two-thirds. Flick, later imprisoned after the Nuremberg war crimes trials, was with Fritz Thyssen the major co-owner of the German Steel Trust, and from 1932 contributed large sums to the Nazi Party. Like Thyssen, Flick's money helped finance the Nazis private armies, the black-shirted S.S. (Schutzstaffel) and the brown-shirted S.A. storm troopers (Sturmabteilung), who together destroyed German democracy on the streets, paving the way for Hitler's rise to absolute power.
Prescott Bush concentrated on the Harriman's German activities, and with his father-in-law George Herbert Walker directly supervised the Flick-Harriman operations. Some have claimed that Bush had consciously promoted a "Hitler Project" as being good for Germany and business, others that he was just blinded by greed.
There is no proof that Prescott was himself ever a Nazi or identified with their beliefs - just unassailable evidence of an amoral banker and businessman happy to make money out of the Nazis and to assist their foreign financial dealings in any way possible, as long as there was profit in it.
As to the charge that Bush and the Harrimans personally and intentionally worked to bring Hitler to power, because they thought it would be best for Germany, business and their own pockets, the minimum we can say is "not proven, but cannot be excluded, and circumstantial evidence must cast them under a cloud". Fortunately for Bush and the Harrimans, their ubiquitous circle of friends and Bonesmen kept their names out of the official announcements concerning the seized companies. No charges were ever laid against them, moreover.
Most Americans today have never heard of the Bush-Harriman involvement with the Nazis, and to this day the major media of the USA have generally not investigated these matters, for reasons their corporate directors seem reluctant to discuss.
In this context we note that:
*Prescott Bush was a director of CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System, the large media network). *E. Roland Harriman was a director of Newsweek magazine. He also purchased the New York Daily Herald in 1924 and later made further media investments. *Barbara Bush (wife of President Bush Snr.) is the daughter of Marvin Pierce, who was executive vice-president and later head of the McCall Corporation magazine publishing group. *Samuel Bush's son James Bush married Janet Newbold, daughter of the owner of the Evening Star newspaper of Washington. *The Fox TV network and News Corp. newspaper empire are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, an ardent Bush supporter. *Clear Channel Communications fields 1,200 pro-Bush radio stations across the USA. *There are many other US media connections influenced by Bonesmen, and by relatives and friends of the Bushes, Walkers & Harrimans. So the doubtful "independence" of the large US media on an issue like this could only be resolved by its investigatory actions proving otherwise. So far it has failed the test miserably. Unless this situation is reversed, the charge "corrupt and biased" in this area is difficult to refute.
Nor did it end there. After WWII, a further eighteen additional Brown Brothers Harriman and UBC-related client assets were seized under The Trading with the Enemy Act. Some showed a continued relationship with the Thyssen family after the first 1942 seizures. Worse, after the war Bush and the Harrimans did further business for related concerns moving assets into Switzerland, Panama, Argentina & Brazil. This flight of Nazi capital, especially to Latin America, was to lead to much corruption there and protect & assist Nazi holdouts for many years.
How time blurs memories. Today the name Thyssen is more often remembered in connection with the wonderful art collections of Fritz's younger brother Baron Thyssen Bornemisza de Kaszon, and his younger wife the ultra-glamorous Baroness von Thyssen. And the Bushes parade themselves as the defenders of civilisation against totalitarianism, when they made a fortune being exactly the opposite.
*Many people might believe that Prescott Bush should have been punished for his misdeeds. Most would say that if the profits and blood money he gained from dealing for the Nazis were not confiscated that would be an outrage.
But Prescott Bush got away with it all. He was by now extremely well-connected in general, plus his Skull and Bones membership gave him hidden high-placed allies throughout the decision-making levels of Government. So not only did he keep all the money he had made from his Nazi front company dealings, in 1951 Prescott Bush also received US$750,000 (worth about US$5.3 million in today's values) for his single share in the UBC bank.
Some of all this money was used to help fund both his son George Herbert Walker Bush's first business enterprise, and to support his (Prescott Bush's) own political campaigns. With his big money connections it was an easy step for Prescott to become (1947 -1950) Connecticut Republican finance chairman. He could also easily afford a first unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate in 1950, followed by a triumphant bid in the second of two contests in 1952. The Bushes were now launched onto the stage of public power.
The nauseating truth then is that the present US President's family fortune was largely built on corrupt arms trading and Nazi profits, which have helped propel two Bushes to the White House. Worse, the present President's grandfather's efforts had the effect of helping put Hitler in power. The family for whom it seems that "it's all just business" apparently has no qualms even today about its past*. Which is perhaps not so surprising when we look at the later dealings of the Bush dynasty, their Saudi-Bin Laden connections, their scandalous business activities and their willingness to start a war which benefited them personally but which has plunged America into a Vietnam-style maelstrom.
In summary, there is considerably more circumstantial evidence today to suggest that President Bush's grandfather helped put Hitler in power than there was ever genuine evidence in the hands of George W. Bush when he took America to war in Iraq, claiming a threat of current and developing weapons of mass destruction. If this comparison is not instructive to the voters of America, then we must despair for the future of Western democracy.
And if these same facts do not persuade the US media to examine the Bush background more closely, then those same media that followed the war-at-all-costs bandwagon in 2003 without critically examining its credentials have already weighed themselves in the balance and been found wanting.
*Although President Bush Sr. may have kept a few secretly. An interesting sidelight in a family in which dynastic names are carried forward proudly is that George Herbert Walker Bush and his wife Barbara Bush named their daughter Dorothy after George's mother, another daughter (Pauline Robinson) after Barbara's mother, one son after Barbara's father (Marvin), another son after George's mother's father & himself (George), a third son (Jeb, actually John) probably after his brother Jonathan, but omitted his own father's name entirely.
Instead he called his other son Neil Mallon, after the man who gave him his first big job. However the name Prescott has been used again elsewhere in the Bush line, and true to form it crops up most dishonourably on Presidential election night 2000 in the amazing Fox News scam of that evening. (see Part Three).
** On 1 October 2004 the US Air Forces's No.2 weapons buyer, Darleen Druyun, was sentenced to nine months imprisonment after admitting to inflating prices on a Boeing contract and giving Boeing confidential pricing data from a European rival, in connection with future employment at the giant aerospace company. The corruption investigation was pushed by" honest John" Pentagon watchdog Senator John McCain. However the Bush administration is refusing to allow Senate Armed Services Committee investigators access to over 100 emails connected to Marvin Sambur, the No.1. Air Force weapons buyer. Meanwhile Air Force Secretary James Roche, a former vice-president of the huge Northrop Grumman aircraft and weapons systems conglomerate, and White House official Robin Cleveland are also under investigation for a "conflict of interest"...
Part two: a Government of Thieves
Forthcoming (eventually) …
Part three: The later Bushes
1. It has been suggested of George Herbert Walker Bush (the first President Bush) that he bravely volunteered for the Navy in WWII at age eighteen to redeem his family's shame concerning their Nazi profits, but that later in life he reverted to type and the "it's all just business" credo. Moreover he produced four sons who were well and truly as shameless in business as their grandfather and his father...
2. Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Marvin Bush, George W. Bush. The four sons of G.H.W. Bush have all followed a curious pattern in business that is suggestive of failure followed by massive fraud, with a happy ending reserved for them alone. Then there are their numerous relatives the Walkers, the Ellis family, the Pierces and so on, all doing very well thank you out of "fortunate connections"...
3. The grasping of Bush family members for high public office is a far bigger enterprise than most people realise. They make more sense when regarded less as disparate individuals and more as a dynastic clan striving as eagerly as any Mafia family for group wealth and power, and often achieving it. Bush fans worried about the lack of a serious candidate for future high office from the President's two frivolous daughters need not fret. There are in fact an embarrassment of other young Bushes fast growing towards eager availability...
George Herbert Walker III
Appointed US Ambassador to Hungary, 30 September 2003
on the nomination of his relative President George Walker Bush.
https://greenbaybobfox.wordpress.com/20 ... titletown/
https://greenbaybobfox.wordpress.com/20 ... sinations/
Location: Florida/Wisconsin
by Bob » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:54 pm
Here is some more stuff to chew on. I am thankful that the Supreme Court surprisingly (because they are so slanted to the right now) slapped Bu$h's hand regarding Guantanimo and the trying of the detainees. Hopefully this will start a trend limiting the obsessive and UNCONSTITUTIONAL power that this fascist is seeking.
http://www.tfdinstitute.com/network/bush.htm
Last edited by Bob on Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
BOB ALERT!
by Jim Thompson » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:01 pm
Bob wrote: Here is some more stuff to chew on. I am thankful that the Supreme Court surprising slapped Bu$hes hand regarding Guantanimo and the trying of the detainees. Hopefully this will start a trend limiting the obsessive and UNCONSTITUTIONAL power that this fascist is seeking.
Have you seen this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Yes I did Jim, thanks. Cheney truly is Dr. Evil. He and Rumsfeld go back to the Nixon days. Similar type of President. Wanting absolute power UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. Breaking laws. Escalating war. Deserving impeachment. Driven out of the White House because of a scandal (Watergate) that was directly tied to the JFK assassination. I only can hope that the same outcome awaits the incompetent, law breaking and treasonous George (Dumbya) Bu$h.
Bob wrote: Yes I did Jim, thanks.
Glad you saw this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this Frontline program should have reached a wide & varied & large viewership. Isn't that a major new development, media-wise? A tipping point?
BOB ALERT
by Jim Thompson » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:18 am
Bob wrote: Yes I did Jim, thanks. Cheney truly is Dr. Evil. He and Rumsfeld go back to the Nixon days. Similar type of President. Wanting absolute power UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. Breaking laws. Escalating war. Deserving impeachment. Driven out of the White House because of a scandal (Watergate) that was directly tied to the JFK assassination. I only can hope that the same outcome awaits the incompetent, law breaking and treasonous George (Dumbya) Bu$h.
Seen this, Bob?
by Jim Thompson » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:19 am
Bob wrote: Cheney truly is Dr. Evil.
Bob! Where are you? See:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060713/D8IRAPEO8.html
This will do the trick. Right?
by Bob » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:57 pm
I've been on vacation the last couple of weeks without access to the internet. What a lifestyle change that is! Anyway, the MSM is starting to finally catch on and report on the devious ways of this administration, but the overall coverage has been very weak. The scandals that can be tied to this administration are staggering. 9/11 and who was REALLY behind it. The war in Iraq and the lies that led the U.S. into the conflict . The Plamegate affair. The NSA spying. The secret energy commission heading by Dick Cheney that included all the big oil boys and the now deceased Ken Lay (or is he REALLY dead? ). Bottom line, much MORE needs to be done. The fact that 80% of Americans have NO idea of the Bu$h treasonous legacy can be tied directly to lack of media coverage. Remember, the Bu$hes are the CIA. The CIA has infiltrated the MSM. They control the content that is delivered to the American public. As someone who is in the "business", I am embarrassed by the overall performance of the media and the so called "journalists" that report the news. Hopefully, the tide is turning, but I wouldn't count on it.
Re: Deep inside the Bu$hes
by Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:35 am
Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:
06.27.2006 - Mr. Bob Fox, a highly regarded researcher and writer Posted this powerful Headline that provides a solid foundation for the Developmental History of the Bush Dynasty.
Does anybody have and recent readings or research to add ?
BB.
Bruce Patrick Brychek

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl