Blog Comments

  1. James Lateer's Avatar
    I have just learned that Tom Steyer's father was a partner in Sullivan and Cromwell (Dulles brothers' firm). Tom Steyer was also a banker at Goldman Sachs at one time.

    And now Bloomberg enters, and he was the "Mayor of Wall Street" as a Republican.

    Most people don't know it, but the entire National Security State was ostensibly created by International Banker Ferdinand Eberstadt. If you don't believe it, just read "The Will To Win" which is a biography of Eberstadt. (I have read it and studied it and it is very deep and thorough in its treatment of Eberstadt).

    If the National Security State is still the puppet of the International Banking Establishment, then it looks like those types are coming out into the open to drive the National Security State to get rid of Trump.

    The impeachment effort seems to involve international conspiracy types, especially those in and from Ukraine.

    Stay tuned.

    Amazing.
  2. Alan Ford's Avatar
    An interesting, relevant and timely piece there, Mr. Lateer, thanks for sharing.
  3. James Lateer's Avatar
    Dr. Christine Ford was raped by "Judge" Kavanaugh. Now everybody in America has been. And it doesn't feel good.

    James Lateer
    Updated 10-07-2018 at 02:11 AM by James Lateer
  4. James Lateer's Avatar
    Haven't all you folks gotten it yet?

    The Constitution says that Federal Judges serve during good behavior. The question of good behavior could be determined by a vote of the American people.

    If a Democratic Congress wanted to go after the Supreme Court, they have a thousand ways they could do it. The people have just been the victims of a humongous scam.

    Have you got it yet?

    James Lateer
  5. James Lateer's Avatar
    Mr. Dagosto:

    I think we agree on almost everything. The problem with term limits is that they violate Article 3 of the Constitution and would require a Constitutional Amendment.

    Packing the Court would only require 51% votes in Congress and the signature of the President. That could happen as early as 2021.

    There could also be changes to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress could require that overturning a law could require an ad hoc panel of judges from various
    Federal Appellate Courts including the Supreme Court, maybe a special panel of 13 judges. This enlarged appellate process is done when an appeal is heard en banc from a lower court where all the qualified judges at that level vote.

    Or the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be split into a Social Branch and a Legal Branch like they do in Venezuela.

    James Lateer
  6. Phil Dagosto's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by James Lateer
    Yes, Mr. Dagosto, Trump is now packing the Court to his taste. And yes, Trump's thinking was what the voters approved on 11-6-16.

    Umm. no - that was only an artifact of the Electoral College. The popular vote went to Clinton. And no, I am not a fan of the Clintons or the Democrats but your statement is factually wrong. In addition, poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans hold positions on issues that are diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the Trump agenda.

    In 2020, the voters may have different thinking. But Trump's packing will still be in effect, maybe for 30 more years.

    Many of Trump's policies are just for helping rich people like him. But should Trump be able to run the country for the next 30 years, possibly FROM THE GRAVE? This is just not remotely defensible.

    No. I agree with you there but if you read my original reply I advocated term limits for SCOTUS judges. If the Democrats want to shape the SCOTUS they need to win more elections. That means not running lame establishment candidates like Clinton whose agenda is not nearly as far from Trump's as her apologists would have you think. And it also means not pissing away majorities in both houses of Congress like Obama did (along with control of the vast majority of state houses and governors). IIRC the Democrats declined to filibuster the Roberts and Alito nominations. That's where the SCOTUS was lost, probably irretrievably, for many, many years.

    Although you are probably defending the Court as an institution, this whole situation is really not defensible as making any kind of logical sense. The Kavanaugh debacle is just putting the icing on this huge cake of horse ****.

    I am not defending the SCOTUS as an institution. I personally think the SCOTUS is a joke - a completely political institution shrouded in a covering of impartiality and respectability that it does not deserve.


    James Lateer
    My replies in blue.
  7. James Lateer's Avatar
    Yes, Mr. Dagosto, Trump is now packing the Court to his taste. And yes, Trump's thinking was what the voters approved on 11-6-16.

    In 2020, the voters may have different thinking. But Trump's packing will still be in effect, maybe for 30 more years.

    Many of Trump's policies are just for helping rich people like him. But should Trump be able to run the country for the next 30 years, possibly FROM THE GRAVE? This is just not remotely defensible.

    Although you are probably defending the Court as an institution, this whole situation is really not defensible as making any kind of logical sense. The Kavanaugh debacle is just putting the icing on this huge cake of horse ****.

    James Lateer
  8. Phil Dagosto's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by James Lateer
    Mr. Dagosto has hit the nail on the head. We would wind up with a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court created by the last people who had the chance to do the packing.

    The way it is now, we have a majority picked by Presidents like Reagan who has been dead for decades. Having the most recent party in power do the packing would keep the packing current with the most recent thinking of the voters and would thus constantly update the Court for changes in the thinking of the voters. That's what democracy is supposed to be. Not Reagan running the country from the grave.
    Well right now Trump would be packing the court with more people like Gorsuch and Kavanaguh (OK, more sober versions of Kavanaugh). Would you be happy with that? Does Trump's vision represent the "most recent thinking of the voters"? Does the "most recent thinking of the voters" always coincide with what's good?
  9. James Lateer's Avatar
    Mr. Dagosto has hit the nail on the head. We would wind up with a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court created by the last people who had the chance to do the packing.

    The way it is now, we have a majority picked by Presidents like Reagan who has been dead for decades. Having the most recent party in power do the packing would keep the packing current with the most recent thinking of the voters and would thus constantly update the Court for changes in the thinking of the voters. That's what democracy is supposed to be. Not Reagan running the country from the grave.
  10. Phil Dagosto's Avatar
    The problem I have with the pack the court strategy the court can be packed (and unpacked) by either party. Once its packed with lifetime appointees by one party the other party, when it gets the presidency, will either unpack it or further pack it with judges that share their ideology. Where does it end? I dunno, maybe having a lot more SCOTUS justices would work out but I fear that we would end up the same way we are now with a one-vote majority favoring the last party that had the opportunity to make the most appointments.

    I would be more in favor of term limits for SCOTUS justices (also for abolishing the Senate and greatly expanding the House - but that's another story).
  11. James Lateer's Avatar
    If we "pack the court" every time we have a new president, this will solve much.

    James Lateer
  12. James Lateer's Avatar
    Just ordered my "PACK THE COURT" bumper stickers. This idea will really take off. Some people say that the Republicans would pack it first. Well, if the Democrats had the Presidency and 51% of the House and Senate, they could decrease the number to, say, 5 and then 30 days later, increase it back up to 15.

    All of this would create constructive chaos. It would force the two parties to have a court which is 8 in number with 4 from each party. Or then the 4 Democrats and 4 Republican judges could elect a 9th who was non-partisan. This non-partisan could be replaced if he became partisan after he was appointed.

    This pact or "treaty" would take the Supreme Court out of the political business. It never should have become political in the first place.

    James Lateer
  13. James Lateer's Avatar
    These pathetic party-poopers on the Supreme Court really take the cake.

    What used to be an admirable group of Judges back in the day of William O Douglas and Hugo Black, has now fallen on tough times.

    Nobody seems to know the reasoning behind this anti-gay case. In the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, the only thread of logic seems to be "doing something cruel to these gay guys."

    Real nice Christians. Jesus, of course turned water into wine just to make a wedding successful. These "alternative theology" modern "Christians" would have Jesus turn this wedding cake to dog poop just to make sure that gay guys wedding would be a flop.

    Don't they get the connection of Jesus, wedding, water,wine, happiness? For the Masterpiece Cakeshop it's Jesus, wedding, no cake, sadness, mysery, shame.

    If that's your take on Jesus, I hope this baker and the Supreme Court also, can explain their "theory of the case" here a little better at the pearly gates than they have explained it to us taxpayers and citizens.

    James Lateer
  14. James Lateer's Avatar
  15. James Lateer's Avatar
    this comment is to correct typo in first of these two entries. JL
  16. James Lateer's Avatar
    To Mr. Peter Lemkin: Regarding your lengthy analysis and criticism about the use of factor analysis and JFK. You are completely right that the fact that two people are mentioned on a page of JFK research does not prove much. But this oversimplifies what factor analysis does.

    There may be a group of people that one JFK book thinks are suspects. An example might be the NOLA anti-Castro Cubans. The book The Last Investigation, by Fonzi, focuses almost entirely on them. But another book like Act of Treason by Mark North, focuses on J Edgar Hoover and the Mafia, but may inadvertently mention perhaps 2 or 3 Cubans. And the next book by Mark Lane may focus on the CIA but may also mention 5 other Cubans as minor suspects.

    In all three of these books together, there may be two Cubans who are consistently mentioned, and they tend to be mentioned as a unit of two. In this sense, they are "associates."

    All that factor analysis does is take the 191 names which are common to the 15 major (diverse) JFK books and establish relationships among the 191 people in a way in which the human brain is incapable. This identifies a "factor" which unites these (15) select people as the major relationship within the universe of the 191 suspects. Because the thing all the books have in common is the assassination, presumably the "deep structure" of the common relationships is the association or group of the conspirators.

    It is like pooling all the information in all 30 (or 15) books and identifying the thread that ties them together. It is 100% true that no one author is aware of the deep meaning implied in all the books. If that were the case we wouldn't have 15 unique books. We would only have one upon which all human minds would agree.

    It shouldn't be a surprise that this technique works to a major extent. What other method is there that can take the most prominent 191 names out of 1500 and identify those suspects who are associated. It's like taking 191 common stocks and identifying those that have prices that move together and that move also with, say, the price of oil or the price of copper. It's a process of distillatiion. As I also emphasize, the factor analysis placed the Dulles Brothers side by side. To my knowledge, the Dulles Brothers are never discussed together as a unit in the JFK literature. Yet the computer correctly identified them as a unit. This incredible fact could almost be used to claim that the computer figured out that they are brothers even if no one author knew that they were related.

    Its not sufficient in itself, but it has given me some confidence in my more conventional research. James Lateer
  17. James Lateer's Avatar
    In response to Mr. Peter Lemkin, it should be explained as to my approach to solving the JFK plot. After reading about 20 books, I realized that I was 20% there. Pure arithmetic told me that after reading 100 books, I would be 100% there. I feel that this math proved to be accurate. I am now up to book number 160.
    The approach taken by JFK authors has largely proven to be futile. One either figures out the plot or you don't. My experience has been that with a "total immersion" approach, one reaches a certain point where the outline of the plot appears in one's mind. I assembled a database of 1500 names taken from 30 books. I am confident that almost all significant figures are on that list. Statistical factor analysis has provided a method which reveals the "core" of that very long list of suspects. The factor analysis is not perfect, but it confirms what conventional research also reveals.
    Some criticism comes from people who say I have too many details. Excuse me, but this criticism seems unusual. The number of details is the number of details. The number of suspects is the number of suspects. I can't just decide according to my own taste how many people I would like to believe were involved in the plot.
    I now have reached the point where I have seen the closed door on the open-sourced information. Once one gets into the issue of the true story of JFK and the Nazis, one realizes that the necessary information has been the subject of the deepest level of censorship, beyond what one would think possible. Writers translating from German texts just "simplify" the translations to "help out" the "confused" reader The English version is 250 pages. The German version is 380 pages. A suspect is cited 9 times in the English version, 16 times in the German version.
    Fortunately, we old-time baby boomers are not going to have to go to our graves in ignorance about what happened to JFK. That was my dream. Thanks to the limitless power of the internet, we don't have to wait for the censored documents to be revealed by the Archives. It's all out there for the motivated researcher I couldn't ask for more. James Lateer