Friday, November 29, 2013

Lies in the Media!



Also See:
The Media is Controled by Mega-Corporations!
31 July 2013
Manchurian Candidate - Is It for Real?
20 September 2011
Social Engineering - Really?
28 May 2011
Are You a Victim of Mind Control? (Part 1)
21 September 2007
(Part 2)
03 June 2013
What Really Happened at the Boston Marathon?
22 April 2013
Silenced by Execution, FBI Responsible!
31 May 2013
What's Not Being Told About Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary School?
(Part 1)
19 December 2012
(Part 2)

Monday, November 25, 2013

September 11 - Another Pearl Harbour!

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)

Mysterious Deaths of Key 9 11 Witnesses Full Documentary

911 WTC Biggest Gold Heist in History -  $300 Billion

Pakistan TV Exposes bin Laden Killing Hoax and Documentary Exposes 9/11 Official Story
Paul Craig Roberts
October 16, 2013
“Pakistan TV Exposes bin Laden Killing Hoax” and Documentary Exposes 9/11 Official Story”
Original Bashir interview that contradicts Washington’s account of killing bin Laden
A website in the UK,, that downloaded the video from the link in my original report of the Pakistani TV interview with Mohammad Bashir has posted the interview with the original English subtitles. You can view it here:

This interview of an eyewitness to the entire event is powerful evidence that the Obama regime’s story of the killing of Osama bin Laden and his burial at sea is a hoax and a lie. Pakistani Samaa TV confirms that Bashir is who he says he is and that he lives next to the alleged bin Laden compound. Samaa TV also confirms that neighbors knew the residents of the “compound.” There has never been any mention of the Bashir interview in the presstitute media.
Published on Oct 16, 2013
Mohammad Bashir, Abbottabad resident and neighbour to the alleged “compound” of Osama bin Laden, gives his eyewitness account of what he saw happen on 2 May 2011 (local time), when – according to the official story – US Navy SEALs assassinated Osama bin Laden. In this interview, soon after the event, with a Pakistan national TV station (, Bashir gives an account which fundamentally contradicts the official story.

For a transcript of the interview, please see:

For a detailed interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary to the US Treasury for Economic Policy, who obtained the translation, please see:
This video is being made public for the purposes of education. It provides documentary evidence with respect to the transcript and interview mentioned above; it is thus posted here in the spirit of Fair Use.
Massimo Mazzucco’s 9/11 Documentary
The extraordinary 5-hour film by Massimo Mazzucco exposing the 9/11 official explanation is now available (see below). Information and documentation continue to pile up that 21st century history is largely an orchestrated disinformation event.
Review of “September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor.” A documentary by Massimo Mazzucco.
David Ray Griffin
There have been several good films and videos about 9/11. But the new film by award-winning film-maker Massimo Mazzucco is in a class by itself.
For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for.
Whereas there are excellent films treating the falsity of particular parts of the official account, such as the Twin Towers or WTC 7, Mazzucco has given us a comprehensive documentary treatment of 9/11, dealing with virtually all of the issues.
There have, of course, been films that treated the fictional official story as true. And there are films that use fictional stories to portray people’s struggles after starting to suspect the official story to be false.
But there is no fiction in Mazzucco’s film – except in the sense that it clearly and relentlessly exposes every part of the official account as fictional.
Because of his intent at completeness, Mazzucco has given us a 5-hour film. It is so fascinating and fast-paced that many will want to watch it in one sitting. But this is not necessary, as the film, which fills 3 DVDs, consists of 7 parts, each of which is divided into many short chapters.
These 7 parts treat Air Defence, The Hijackers, The Airplanes, The Pentagon, Flight 93, The Twin Towers, and Building 7. In each part, after presenting facts that contradict the official story, Mazzucco deals with the claims of the debunkers (meaning those who try to debunk the evidence provided by the 9/11 research community).
The Introduction, reflecting the film’s title, deals with 12 uncanny parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11.
The film can educate people who know nothing about 9/11 (beyond the official story), those with a moderate amount of knowledge about the various problems with the official story, and even by experts. (I myself learned many things.)
Mazzucco points out that his film covers 12 years of public debate about 9/11. People who have been promoting 9/11 truth for many of these years will see that their labors have been well-rewarded: There is now a high-quality, carefully-documented film that dramatically shows the official story about 9/11 to be a fabrication through and through.
This is truly the film we have been waiting for.
Availability: The film is freely available to the world at:
1. The film-maker’s own website, complete with detailed index:
2. On YouTube:
Also See:
Twelve Years Later - Commemorating September 11, 2001
11 September 2013
9/11 - Will We Ever Know What Happened?
(Part 1)
16 August 2009
(Part 2)
29 January 2012
(Part 3)
07 September 2012
How Did WTC 7 Collapse Into It's Own Footprint?
28 April 2012
9/11 - After Ten Years, What Do We Know? 
10 September 2011
What's with the Ground Zero Mosque?
15 August 2010
911 Conspiracy Theories
21 February 2007

Friday, November 22, 2013

Who was J. Edgar Hoover?


J. Edgar Hoover  
The Real J. Edgar Hoover?
By Paul Kengor
July 29, 2013

Edward S. Miller, a lifetime FBI man of high rank and stature, recently passed away at the age of 89. A good man and good American, Miller, who was also a veteran of World War II (Okinawa), faithfully served his family, country, and God. He also faithfully served the agency that hired him in 1950, as well as the longtime head of that agency, J. Edgar Hoover.
I was fortunate to spend a long Saturday afternoon with Ed Miller back in March, at long last meeting him after previously only corresponding with him. (He was an alumnus of Grove City College, where I teach.) It was a time I won't forget, and Miller had some things he wanted me not to forget -- and to share with the public. Foremost among them was his take on J. Edgar Hoover. He wanted the world to know what he insisted was the real J. Edgar Hoover -- a man totally contrary to the hysterical left-wing Hollywood portrayal that frames the FBI director as a mix between lunatic anti-communist, power-hungry Napoleonic authoritarian, and closet homosexual and cross-dresser. According to Ed Miller, none of it was true.
"He was terrific," Miller told me of Hoover, instantly knowing that such isn't the typical take on the man who was the face of the FBI for parts of six decades. During our detailed and varied conversation, few subjects lit up Miller quite like his old boss. Hoover was "great." He was "sharp." He was "absolutely brilliant." He was "wonderful."
Miller proceeded to give me example after example. Among them, here's one that will throw liberals for a loop, clashing as it does with their ideological prejudices:

"We needed black agents," said Miller of the FBI of the 1960s. "We needed them badly. I went out and hired 13 black agents in one fell swoop, and he [Hoover] approved every single one of them. I put together a new group of 56 agents altogether, 13 of them black. And Hoover said, 'This is the finest class of agents I've ever seen.' They were really well educated, athletic, great shape. And Hoover, as director, personally shook the hands of all 56 in his office."

Hoover didn't discriminate among white men or black men. He wanted good men. He wanted men who were good for his agency and his country.

To Ed Miller, J. Edgar Hoover was the antithesis of a demeaning, brooding, bossy dictator. He was a model of integrity and truth who "always" and "totally" backed his men. He wanted his men to give him the information straight, to be "entirely objective." This was likewise true for the men that his men hired. Miller recalled an episode in which none other than Lyndon Johnson (speaking of demeaning, brooding, bossy) repeatedly pushed Hoover to hire some political job-seeker from New Jersey. It was vintage LBJ, who was all about patronage and corruption. Ed Miller saw right through it, and refused to hire the man, who, Miller judged, simply wasn't a good fit. When Hoover called Miller to get an explanation, Miller explained that the man wasn't right for the job. Hoover stood by Miller -- and against LBJ.

Miller shared with me several such instances. In each case, Miller gave Hoover what he thought was best for the FBI and America. Hoover respected that. That's what he wanted.
In the course of our conversation on Hoover, I couldn't avoid the elephant in the living room: the sensational stories about the FBI director's sexual/gender interests and issues. Among them, Ed Miller told me that the claims of Hoover having Clyde Tolson as a "gay lover" were "absolutely false." He said that Hoover was a heterosexual who had love affairs with beautiful women such as the glamorous actress Dorothy Lamour. Their romance, in fact, almost led to marriage. Hoover, however, was married to his job. "She dumped him because he was married to his job!" said Miller. "He had one hell of an interesting job, Paul. And he was always very busy."
If Ed Miller is correct, then where did the rumors about Hoover come from?
Here, Miller's thesis is most convincing. He chalked up the sexual gossip to the nature of Hoover's political work -- specifically, to the political enemies he earned. Hoover had devoted decades to dutifully and carefully pursuing a domestic network of American communists who were devoted heart and body and soul to Stalin's Soviet Union. Hoover and his men not only looked into Communist Party USA members but homegrown agents of Soviet influence. That trail also often swerved into the huge numbers of duped liberals who didn't realize when and where and how these so-called "progressive" pals of theirs were secretly using them to advance Moscow's aims and agenda.
And so, argues Miller, Hoover's political enemies on the soft left and (especially) the hard left smeared him with false claims. No one excelled at disinformation and blatantly vicious lies and character assassination quite like the Communist Party. American communists had a campaign for anything and everything. In fact, the single best exposé on communist campaigns was a remarkable June 1959 report done by Hoover's FBI, authorized and signed by Hoover himself, titled, "Communist Propaganda in the United States, Part VIII, Campaigns." I have that report. It's an eye-opener.
Interestingly, in retrospect, it looks like America's communists might have had a campaign aimed at Hoover himself -- who wouldn't have been surprised. All of these campaigns, as the FBI noted, had one thing in common: they sought to enlist a wider swath of duped liberals into the campaign. The orchestrators of the campaign concealed their hand.
Did that happen with Hoover? Perhaps so.
The left tried to frame J. Edgar Hoover as another Joe McCarthy, but with a new wrinkle. Whereas McCarthy was portrayed as an irresponsible anti-communist who was a reckless drunk, Hoover was portrayed as an irresponsible anti-communist who cross-dressed and lusted after men.
Pause for a moment to chew that one over. Think about it. It's funny, but at one point in time, the American left peddled such stories to cook up a view of Hoover that they'd today denounce as viciously "homophobic." Once upon a time, they merrily framed him as a wild "pervert," a sexual sicko/weirdo. That was when such an image served liberals' interests. Now, however, Hoover's alleged homosexual/bisexual pursuits would surely conflict the left. In modern liberal/progressive eyes, such pursuits ought to make Hoover a complicated and even sympathetic, laudatory character, perhaps a hero. That is, if not for Hoover's unflagging anti-communism, which earns him eternal demon status in the left's moral universe. There are few things that make liberals recoil quite like a strident, God-fearing anti-communist.
Ed Miller, for one, wasn't surprised by the sliming of Hoover. He followed these people for years. He knew of their smear campaigns. He knew them well. He studied them. He documented them. And he knew that CPUSA had good reason to loathe the FBI. As Miller said, it was Hoover and his boys who "killed Communist Party USA." And so, in turn, they "really went after" Hoover.
For the record, I'm no expert on J. Edgar Hoover. I cannot confirm all that Ed Miller told me about the man. The sexual material certainly isn't my area of expertise. The communist/CPUSA material, however, is -- and makes perfect sense.
I can further confirm that Ed Miller's eyes swelled with tears and he choked up as he talked glowingly about his old boss. It was an intense admiration for a man who did not deserve the trashing he received in life and (even more so) in death, when he couldn't defend himself. In fact, that's another thing typical of the left, and especially communists: they destroy the reputations of the dead, who can't defend themselves. (On that, see the terrific new book by Ion Mihai Pacepa and Ron Rychlak, where they expose the communist campaign against Pope Pius XII and other figures.)
Sure, Miller's view on Hoover is one man's opinion, but it was a very informed opinion from a lifetime FBI insider of high rank and stature who worked with Hoover, and didn't just "learn" about him from some movie or scandal sheet. Ed Miller saw and knew a J. Edgar Hoover that none of the rest of us could or did. Is Ed Miller's J. Edgar Hoover the real J. Edgar Hoover? Or is Hollywood's?
I know where I'd put my money.

The secret life of J Edgar Hoover
For half a century, the FBI director waged war on homosexuals, black people and communists. Now, a controversial film by Clint Eastwood is set to reveal some of the explosive truth about him. Here, his biographer Anthony Summers tells all
Anthony Summers
The Observer
Sunday 1 January 2012
J Edgar Hoover was a phenomenon. The first Director of the FBI, he remained in office for 48 years, from his appointment after the First World War to his death in 1972, achieving fame and extraordinary power. For public consumption when he died, President Richard Nixon eulogised him as: "One of the giants… a national symbol of courage, patriotism and granite-like honesty and integrity." He ordered flags to fly at half-mast and that Hoover's body lie in state in the Capitol.
In private, on hearing that he had died, Nixon had responded merely: "Jesus Christ! That old cocksucker!" Months earlier, closeted with key advisers, he had held forth on the need to persuade the elderly Hoover to resign. "We have on our hands here a man who will pull down the temple with him, including me."
Nixon, soon to be disgraced and forced to resign, was of course himself no paragon. Most presidents before him, though, had had cause to fear Hoover or been troubled by what his FBI had become. Harry S Truman wrote during his presidency: "We want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail… Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him."
Hoover himself, meanwhile, had a personal secret that – in his era – could have destroyed him if revealed. Clint Eastwood referred to it this year before the launch of his movie, when he assured the J Edgar Hoover Foundation that J Edgar would not "portray an open homosexual relationship" between Hoover and his long-time male companion, Clyde Tolson.
Eastwood stretched the truth. Though there is just one passionate kiss between Leonardo DiCaprio and Armie Hammer, the two actors portraying them in the movie, the relationship with Tolson is a central theme. In real life, all Washington knew was that the pair dined daily together, vacationed together, did everything but move in together, and the whispers flew. When a magazine article in the 1930s referred to Hoover's "mincing" gait, and a diplomat commented on his "conspicuous perfume", Hoover struck back. He gathered derogatory information on the offending journalist, and asserted – falsely – that he did not use perfume. Real information on the Hoover-Tolson relationship surfaced only long after both men were dead, during research for my book.
A surprising find was the account by Luisa Stuart, once a celebrated model, tracked down because she featured in a droll photograph taken with Hoover and Tolson one New Year's Eve in the late 1930s at the Stork Club – the place to be seen in New York at the time. In the photo, Hoover is shown holding his hands up as Stuart, armed with a toy shotgun, "threatens" him. Later that night, in the dark of a limousine when they left the club, she remembered: "I noticed they were holding hands all the way, just sitting there talking and holding hands with each other… I was so young and those were different times. But I'd never seen two men holding hands."
Joseph Shimon, a former Washington police inspector, recalled a taxi driver reporting the pair had been "kissing and ass-grabbing" during a cab journey. Harry Hay, founder of America's first gay rights group, remembered that on vacation in California, in "a circle in which they didn't have people who weren't gay… They were nodded together as lovers."
The Eastwood movie includes a bizarre scene that depicts Hoover, after his mother's death, donning one of her dresses. It is a nod towards allegations I first reported, that he on occasion cross-dressed. I had information from three sources, two men who said an "easily recognisable" photograph of Hoover in an evening gown circulated in the gay community in 1948, and an account by a millionaire's former wife of secret sex parties that she claimed to have witnessed in the late 50s. Hoover, the woman said, had been "dressed like an old flapper, like you see on old tintypes".
Bill Clinton, who as president in 1993 was mulling over who to appoint as FBI Director, thought the cross-dressing reports were hilarious. "It's going to be hard," he grinned during a speech at a press function, "to fill J Edgar Hoover's… pumps." That I published such allegations at all, however, to this day draws roars of fury from old Hoover loyalists.
Other accounts of the Director's alleged sexual activity, if true, would certainly have destroyed him had they become public. A former Bureau inspector and trusted associate named Jimmy Corcoran said years later that Hoover, youthful at the time, had once asked him to deal with a serious "problem". He had been arrested on sex charges involving a young man during a trip to New Orleans. Corcoran, who had powerful contacts in the state, said he intervened to hush the matter up.
There is, too, a claim that as late as 1969, when Hoover was in his early 70s, he dallied with teenage boys during his habitual summer break in California. An element of corroboration came from Don Smith, an officer on the Los Angeles police vice squad, who told me of interviews he conducted with youngsters during a paedophile investigation. "The kids," Smith said, "brought up several famous names, including those of Hoover and his sidekick".
For me, the most significant, credible information on Hoover's sexuality came with the discovery that Hoover for a while consulted Marshall de G Ruffin, a Washington psychiatrist who became president of the Washington Psychiatric Society. De Ruffin's widow Monteen recalled learning from her husband that his distinguished patient was "definitely troubled by homosexuality". After several sessions, however, "Hoover got very paranoid about anyone finding out he was a homosexual, and got scared." As if to compensate, Hoover lashed out at and sought to expose other homosexuals. For years he had his agents infiltrate and monitor homosexual-rights groups, while he sounded off publicly about "sex deviates in government service".
My conclusion after five years' research was that while Hoover may have spent much of his life repressing his private urges while building an image of himself as the acme of sexual purity, he did sometimes lapse – risking catastrophe every time. Having studied the information I assembled, two noted specialists in psychiatry and psychology said they believed Hoover's sexual torment was very pertinent to his use and abuse of power as America's top law-enforcement officer.
Dr John Money, professor of medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University, thought Hoover "needed constantly to destroy other people in order to maintain himself. He managed to live with his conflict by making others pay the price." Dr Harold Lief, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, concluded that Hoover suffered from "a personality disorder, a narcissistic disorder with mixed obsessive features… paranoid elements, undue suspiciousness and some sadism. A combination of narcissism and paranoia produces what is known as an authoritarian personality. Hoover would have made a perfect high-level Nazi."
The eight decades of Hoover's life tell their own story. As early as his teen years, his mind was closing on issues that were to dominate his era. In the school debating society, he argued against women getting the vote and against abolition of the death penalty. He could never bear to come second in anything. When his father began to suffer from mental illness, a niece told me, Hoover "couldn't tolerate the fact. He never could tolerate anything that was imperfect." Another relative said: "I sometimes have thought that he really had a fear of becoming too personally involved with people." William Sullivan, a close FBI associate, thought his boss "didn't have affection for one single solitary human being".
Hoover joined the Bureau – at that time just the Bureau of Investigation (the word "Federal" was only added in the 1930s) – as America's first great Communist scare was getting under way, and handpicked as his assistant a man named George Ruch. One of two key associates to name their own sons J Edgar, Ruch expressed astonishment that left-wingers should even "be allowed to speak and write as they like". Hoover and Ruch favoured deporting people merely for being members of radical organisations, and used the Bureau to spy on lawyers representing those arrested in the infamous Red Raids of 1920. One of them, on whom he was to keep tabs for half a century and deem "the most
dangerous man in the United States", was future Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter.
Hoover never joined a political party and claimed he was "not political". In fact, he admitted privately, he was a staunch, lifelong supporter of the Republican party. He secretly aspired to be president and considered running against Franklin D Roosevelt, whom he thought suspiciously left-wing. Hoover publicly expressed support for Senator Joe McCarthy shortly before McCarthy claimed Truman's State Department was harbouring 200 members of the Communist party. His agents slipped file material to the senator for use in his infamous inquisition, while publicly denying doing so.
The favourable publicity Hoover enjoyed was partially deserved. He cleaned up a Bureau that had been notorious for corruption and inefficiency, replacing it with an agent corps that became a byword for integrity. One veteran defined the ideal new recruit as a man who had to represent "the great middle class", who "will always eat well and dress well, but will never get that sleek Packard or sumptuous house. He belongs to the Bureau body and soul".
Hoover brought modernity and co-ordination at a time of disorganisation. He built the first federal fingerprint bank, and his Identification Division would eventually offer instant access to the prints of 159 million people. His Crime Laboratory became the most advanced in the world. He created the FBI National Academy, a sort of West Point for the future elite of law enforcement.
While all this was positive, Hoover's Division 8, euphemistically entitled Crime Records and Communications, had a priority mission. Crime Records pumped out propaganda that fostered not only the image of the FBI as an organisation that spoke for what was right and just, but of the Director himself as a champion of justice fighting "moral deterioration" and "anarchist elements". Hoover used the department to preach the notion that the political left was responsible for all manner of perceived evils, from changing sexual standards to delinquency.
Crime Records portrayed Hoover as the dauntless scourge of serious crime. In the movie J Edgar, long sequences are devoted to his supposed role in tracking down the murderer of the aviator Charles Lindbergh's baby son. In real life, while Hoover postured as the Sherlock who led the probe, the case was in fact broken thanks to work done by another federal agency. Similar phoney self-promotion featured in the fight against the bandits of the 30s, Bonnie and Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger and Alvin Karpis. Hoover hogged the limelight when the thugs were killed or captured and was jealous and vindictive when it fell instead on one of his proteges.
Late in the Eastwood movie, his companion, Clyde Tolson, peruses a memoir Hoover has just completed about his life and career. Then, reproachfully, he remarks that the account is a pack of lies. There was no real-life memoir, but the line is perceptive. Issues of fact versus fabrication and distortion, truth versus outright lie or self-delusion, dominate Hoover's story.
Hoover's public position on race, Southerner that he was, was that of the paternalistic white nativist. Less openly, he was racially prejudiced. He shrugged off the miseries of black Americans, preferring to claim they were outside his jurisdiction. "I'm not going to send the FBI in," a Justice Department official recalled him saying testily, "every time some nigger woman says she's been raped." FBI agents paid more attention to investigating black militants than pursuing the Ku Klux Klan.
In the 60s, Hoover went to extreme lengths to establish that Martin Luther King and his movement were under Communist control. When surveillance established only that King was having sex with women other than his wife, FBI aides worked to "neutralise" him by slipping prurient information to the press. When the civil rights leader was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover was enraged. When thousands mourned King's assassination, Hoover went to the races. He later tried to prevent King's birthday being declared a national holiday.
All this took place against a personal background of which few are today aware – a rumour that Hoover himself had black ancestry. Early photographs do show him looking somewhat negroid, with noticeably wiry hair. Gossip along those lines was rife in Washington and – true or not – Hoover must have been aware of it. Did anxiety on that front shape the way he behaved towards blacks – just as he lashed out at homosexuals while struggling with his own homosexuality?
Research into the sex angle, meanwhile, may explain why – at the very time in US history that organised crime was on the rise and could have been effectively countered – Hoover failed to act. The man who had found fame for hunting down the bank robbers and bandits of the 30s let the Mafia flourish.
It seemed at first, before the Second World War, that Hoover would clamp down on the mob. Then, abruptly, he turned off the pressure. In the 50s, he actively obstructed the Kefauver Committee, which concluded there was indeed "a nationwide crime syndicate known as the Mafia". Not so, said Hoover. When a 1958 report by his own agents also said the Mafia was real, he dismissed it as "baloney". The FBI would take vigorous action only very belatedly, in the 1960s, under pressure from Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
Former officials I interviewed, including three former attorney generals and several former assistant directors of the FBI, were at a loss to explain why Hoover refused to tackle the threat of organised crime. "Hoover's attitude," said Neil Welch, a senior former agent who eventually distinguished himself fighting the Mafia, "was so contrary to reality as to be a reason for great speculation."
Hoover himself, it is now clear, had contacts with organised criminals or their associates in circumstances that made it possible – likely even – that they learned of his sexual proclivities. More than one top mobster claimed the outfit had a hold on Hoover. Meyer Lansky, the syndicate's co-founder, was said to have "pictures of Hoover in some kind of gay situation" and an associate quoted Lansky as claiming, "I fixed that sonofabitch." Carmine Lombardozzi, who was known as "the Italian Meyer Lansky", said: "J Edgar Hoover was in our pocket."
Blackmail was the tactic that worked for Hoover, too, in his dealings with politicians. The title of my biography of him, Official and Confidential, derives from the name of a file group that was held in locked cabinets in Hoover's office. By an official count after his death, the Director held 883 files on senators and 722 on congressmen. Many documents were shredded after Hoover's death, but those that survive speak for themselves. An example is this 1959 report:
Dear Mr Hoover,
You may be interested in the following information… (NAME WITHHELD) [said] she had spent the afternoon of 3 June 1959, with Senator (NAME WITHHELD) in his private office. She also said she had sexual intercourse with the senator during the afternoon "on the couch in the senator's office…" Sincerely yours, James H Gale, Special Agent in Charge

Such reports, I learned, were used to bend politicians to Hoover's will. He might need their co-operation to procure funds, to gain political muscle, or to avert investigation of operations he preferred kept hidden. An aide to Senator Edward Long, the Democrat from Missouri, was to swear an affidavit describing what occurred when Long was planning hearings on the FBI – with a special focus on electronic eavesdropping. A senior Hoover aide came to call, and the conversation went as follows: "Senator, I think you ought to read this file that we have on you. You know we would never use it, because you're a friend of ours… We just thought you ought to know the type of stuff that might get around and might be harmful to you… They handed him the folder… Long read it for a few minutes. [Then] they went on their way. The next thing I knew we had orders to skip over the FBI inquiries."
Hoover snooped not just on politicians but on officials high and low, on Supreme Court justices – at least 12 of them – even on presidents. He built files on writers, actors, on citizens across the spectrum who caught his malignant eye. Many feared what the Director might have found – whether he had compromising information on them or not.
In life, Hoover denied time and again that there were such "secret dossiers". Acting Attorney General Laurence Silberman, the first person to peruse the secret files after Hoover's death in 1972, learned otherwise. "J Edgar Hoover," he told me, "was like a sewer that collected dirt. I now believe he was the worst public servant in our history."
The Director more than got away with his excesses. He was showered with honours. Even today, in spite of the ugly truths that have surfaced since his death – an official probe found that on top of everything he had also been personally corrupt – the sign on the façade of FBI headquarters in Washington proclaims, in gold lettering, that it is the "J EDGAR HOOVER BUILDING".
"American society", mused Dr Lief, the psychiatrist who thinks the facts indicate Hoover would have made a perfect high-level Nazi, "has a strangely polarised attitude towards its heroes. On the one hand people love to find the idol has clay feet, to find the flaw in the famous man. On the other, they are reluctant to take the hero off his pedestal. This is a curious contradiction in our society, and sometimes a dangerous one."
Anthony Summers is the author of eight non-fiction books; the most recent is The Eleventh Day, on 9/11. A new edition of Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover, is published this month (Ebury, £8.99). The movie J Edgar is out on 20 January

J. Edgar Hoover: Gay or Just a Man Who Has Sex With Men?
By Susan Donaldson James via Good Morning America
Nov. 16, 2011
Clint Eastwood: The Mind Behind 'J. Edgar'
J. Edgar Hoover led a deeply repressed sexual life, living with his mother until he was 40, awkwardly rejecting the attention of women and pouring his emotional, and at times, physical attention on his handsome deputy at the FBI, according to the new movie, "J. Edgar," directed by Clint Eastwood.
Filmgoers never see the decades-long romance between the former FBI director, and his number two, Clyde Tolson, consummated, but there's plenty of loving glances, hand-holding and one scene with an aggressive, long, deep kiss.
So was the most powerful man in America, who died in 1972 -- three years after the Stonewall riots marked the modern gay civil rights movement -- homosexual?
Eastwood admits the relationship between Hoover, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and Clyde Tolson, played by Armie Hammer, is ambiguous.
"He was a man of mystery," he told ABC's "Good Morning America" last week. "He might have been [gay]. I am agnostic about it. I don't really know and nobody really knew."
In public, Hoover waged a vendetta against homosexuals and kept "confidential and secret" files on the sex lives of congressmen and presidents. But privately, according to some biographers, he had numerous trysts with men, including a lifelong affair with Tolson.
Dissociation -- denying homosexuality, but displaying sexual behavior -- is "not uncommon," according to Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist who is an expert in gender and sexuality.
Men with strong attractions to other men can have different degrees of acceptance from being fully closeted to being openly gay. And even if they are homosexually self-aware, they can embrace it or reject it publicly.
"We confuse sexual orientation with sexual identity," said Drescher. "Some men do not publicly identify as gay, regardless of their sexual behavior."
Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks a group that is not labeled "gay" but "men who have sex with men."
Roy Cohn, the lawyer who served as chief counsel to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in his anti-communist campaign of the 1950s and who successfully convicted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of espionage, denied he was gay, despite an attraction to men.
Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, was a contemporary of Hoover and according to one biography, the two attended sex parties together in New York in the 1950s.
Cohn was characterized in a scene from Tony Kuschner's play, "Angels in America," speaking to his doctor: " are hung up on words, on labels, that you believe they mean what they seem to mean. AIDS. Homosexual. Gay. Lesbian. You think these are names that tell you who someone sleeps with, but they don't tell you that ... Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man, Henry, who f****s around with guys."
Hoover's degree of self-awareness may have been the same as Cohn's. Despite his same-sex dalliances, he occasionally sought a "Mrs. Hoover" and even courted -- albeit uncomfortably -- actress Ginger Rogers' mother and actress Dorothy Lamour.
Hoover's neuroses were likely rooted in childhood: He was ashamed of his mentally ill father and was dependent on his morally righteous mother, Annie, well into middle age. Until her death in 1938, Hoover had no social life outside the office.
In the film, Annie chastises her powerful son as he wilted before some of his FBI critics, telling him, "I'd rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son."
In a 2004 biography by Richard Hack, "Puppetmaster," which was culled from the notes of Truman Capote, who had begun interviews on Hoover and Tolson's relationship, the author says Hoover was not gay, but suggests the man was vicariously turned on by the smut he collected on others.
One 200-page secret document was on the extracurricular activities of Capote himself, who was openly gay.
But Anthony Summers, who exposed the secret sex life of Hoover in his 1993 book, "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover," said there was no ambiguity about the FBI director's sexual proclivities.
"What does Clint Eastwood know about it?" he asked Summers collaborated with historians and conducted 800 interviews for the book, including nieces and those who were young enough at the time to have known the man personally.
"We were able to get a close view of the man as an individual and as a human being -- as close as anybody who had not been afraid of him since he died," said Summers.
With interest in the Eastwood film, publishers in the U.S. and in Britain are issuing a remake of the book.
One medical expert told Summers that Hoover was "strongly predominant homosexual orientation" and another categorized him as a "bisexual with failed heterosexuality."
Hoover often suppressed his urges, but would break out in lapses that could have destroyed him -- alleged orgies in New York City hotels and affairs with teenage boys in a limousine, according to interviews conducted by Summers.
"He was a sadly repressed individual, but most people, even J. Edgar Hoover, let go on occasion," he said.
Hoover as a Cross-Dresser Is Controversial
One short scene in the film showed the FBI director in anguish over his mother's death, putting on her dress and beads, a nod to Summers expose that Hoover had been a cross-dresser.
The Washington Post recently dismissed that account because of a discredited source, but Summers maintains he had two other independent sources from different periods in Hoover's life.
Hoover often frequented New York City's Stork Club and one observer -- soap model Luisa Stuart, who was 18 or 19 at the time -- told Summers she saw Hoover holding hands with Tolson as they all rode in a limo uptown to the Cotton Club in 1936.
"I didn't really understand anything about homosexuality at the time," said Stuart. "But I'd never seen two men holding hands. And I remember asking Art [Arthur] about it in the car on the way home that night. And he just said, 'Oh, come on. You know,' or something like that. And he told me they were queers or fairies --- the sort of terms they used in those days."
Hoover promoted men inclined to homosexual indiscretions, including Tolson, who had barely 18 months experience with the FBI when he became Hoover's deputy.
The pair used to make "saucy jokes" about some of the other agents, like Melvin Purvis, who was a hero for arresting John Dillinger, according to Summers.
Purvis's son shared his father's 500-letter correspondence with Hoover, who teased the good-looking, blond-haired agent as "the Clark Gable of the FBI," even though he was heterosexual.
Many were intimate and one was highly charged with innuendo, as Hoover referred to himself as the "Chairman of the Moral Uplift Squad."
Ethel Merman, who had known Hoover since 1938, knew his sexual orientation, according to Summers. In 1978 when the actress was asked to comment on Anita Bryant's anti-gay campaign, Merman told the reporter, "Some of my best friends are homosexual. Everybody knew about J. Edgar Hoover, but he was the best chief the FBI ever had."
Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights organizations, confirmed that Hoover and Tolson sat in boxes owned by and used exclusively by gay men at their racing haunt Del Mar in California.
"They were nodded together as lovers," he told Summers.
Another FBI agent who had gone on fishing trips with Hoover and Tolson revealed that the director liked to "sunbathe all day in the nude." Even novelist William Styron told Summers that he once spotted Hoover and Tolson in a California beach house -- the director painting his friends toenails.
But, according to Summers, "Nobody dared say anything, he was so powerful."
The author interviewed the widow of respected Washington, D.C. psychiatrist Dr. Marshall de G. Ruffin, who treated Hoover in 1946 after his general practitioner had been "puzzled by a strange malaise in his patient."
Monteen Ruffin told Summers that Hoover was "very paranoid" about anyone finding out, and he eventually stopped seeing the psychiatrist. She said her husband burned the evidence.
"He was definitely troubled by homosexuality," she said in 1990, "and my husband's notes would have proved that ... I might stir a kettle of worms by making that statement, but everybody then understood that he was a homosexual, not just the doctors."
As the movie depicts, after Hoover's death, his loyal secretary Helen Gandy destroys the "official and confidential" files.
When Hoover died in 1972, President Richard Nixon ordered his "dirty tricks man" Gordon Liddy to scour the FBI director's office for files. But when they arrived, someone had taken "drastic action," said Summers. Nothing but tables and chairs remained.
Summers said he is often asked, but rarely answers the question about what he personally thought of Hoover as a human being.
"Yes, I had sympathy for somebody who has to bury their real preferences through a long life in the public eye," he said. "But not sympathy for the way in which he was dictatorial, the way he behaved politically and personally to people right from the beginning in his late teens and early 20s.
"He was totally self-serving and the way in which he was a repressed homosexual didn't require him to abuse individual rights and human liberties the way he did," said Summers. "It does not begin to justify his behavior toward blacks and concoct an anonymous letter to Martin Luther King and suggest he end it all and kill himself."
Psychiatrists have concluded that Hoover "no doubt" had a narcissistic personality disorder, perhaps because of his dependency on a forceful mother who had "great expectations for her son," he said.
"Studies suggest that people with such backgrounds block their feelings and cut meaningful relationships," according to Summers, who said Hoover would have been a "perfect high-level Nazi."
However, Eastwood, who is a Republican, contends that J. Edgar Hoover was "probably good for the country," and whether he was homosexual or not makes no difference.
"I don't really know and nobody really knew," he told ABC. "It's definitely a love story. You can love a person and whether it goes into the realm of being gay or not, is here nor there."
A younger generation of gays was moved by the film precisely because it portrayed such an iconic figure's struggle with his sexuality.
"The audience I was in clearly rooted for Hoover to be gay and to have happiness in his sex and love life," said Ben Ryan, a 33-year-old novelist from New York City. "In a pivotal scene between DiCaprio and Hammer in which the two men engage in the classic brawl-leads-to-furious-kiss, everyone got so excited when they finally locked lips."
"Anyone in their right mind would see this movie and say, 'Oh, well, of course Hoover was gay,'" he said. "The more suspicious among us might think that the filmmakers were still afraid of Hoover's ghost suing them for libel if they just put it right out there that he was gay."
Still, he said, the film is a "tragic story that should hopefully teach society lessons about how dangerous sexual repression is."

Hoover’s Secret Files
By Ronald Kessler
August 2nd 2011
The FBI director kept famous files on everything from Martin Luther King’s sex life to never-before-reported secret meetings between RFK and Marilyn Monroe, as a new book reveals. An exclusive excerpt from Ronald Kessler’s 'The Secrets of the FBI.'
Complex man that he was, J. Edgar Hoover left nothing to chance. The director shrewdly recognized that building what became known as the world’s greatest law enforcement agency would not necessarily keep him in office. So after Hoover became director, he began to maintain a special Official and Confidential file in his office. The “secret files,” as they became widely known, would guarantee that Hoover would remain director as long as he wished.
Defenders of Hoover— a dwindling number of older former agents who still refer to him as “Mr. Hoover”—have claimed his Official and Confidential files were not used to blackmail members of Congress or presidents. They say Hoover kept the files with sensitive information about political leaders in his suite so that young file clerks would not peruse them and spread gossip. The files were no more secret than any other bureau files, Hoover supporters say.
While the files may well have been kept in Hoover’s office to protect them from curious clerks, it was also true that far more sensitive files containing top-secret information on pending espionage cases were kept in the central files. If Hoover truly was concerned about information getting out, he should have been more worried about the highly classified information in those files.
Moreover, the Official and Confidential files were secret in the sense that Hoover never referred to them publicly, as he did the rest of the bureau’s files. He distinguished them from other bureau files by calling them “confidential,” denoting secrecy. But whether they were secret or not and where they were kept was irrelevant. What was important was how Hoover used the information from those files and from other bureau files.
“The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator,” said William Sullivan, who became the number three official in the bureau under Hoover, “he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter. But we wanted you to know this. We realize you’d want to know it.’ Well, Jesus, what does that tell the senator? From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.”
Lawrence J. Heim, who was in the Crime Records Division, confirmed to me that the bureau sent agents to tell members of Congress that Hoover had picked up derogatory information on them.
“He [Hoover] would send someone over on a very confidential basis,” Heim said. As an example, if the Metropolitan Police in Washington had picked up evidence of homosexuality, “he [Hoover] would have him say, ‘This activity is known by the Metropolitan Police Department and some of our informants, and it is in your best interests to know this.’ But nobody has ever claimed to have been blackmailed. You can deduce what you want from that.”
Of course, the reason no one publicly claimed to have been blackmailed is that blackmail, by definition, entails collecting embarrassing information that people do not want public. But not everyone was intimidated.
Roy L. Elson, the administrative assistant to Senator Carl T. Hayden, will never forget an encounter
he had with Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, the FBI’s liaison with Congress. For twenty years, Hayden headed the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and later the Senate Appropriations Committee, which had jurisdiction over the FBI’s budget. He was one of the most powerful members of Congress. As Hayden, an Arizona Democrat, suffered hearing loss and some dementia in his later years, Elson became known as the “101st senator” because he made many of the senator’s decisions for him.
In the early 1960s, DeLoach wanted an additional appropriation for the new FBI headquarters building, which Congress approved in April 1962.
“The senator supported the building,” Elson said. “He always gave the bureau more money than they needed. This was a request for an additional appropriation. I had reservations about it. DeLoach was persistent.”
DeLoach “hinted” that he had “information that was unflattering and detrimental to my marital situation and that the senator might be disturbed,” said Elson, who was then married to his second wife. “I was certainly vulnerable that way,” Elson said. “There was more than one girl [he was seeing]. . . . The implication was there was information about my sex life. There was no doubt in my mind what he was talking about.”
Elson said to DeLoach: “Let’s talk to him [the senator] about it. I think he’s heard about everything there is to hear about me. Bring the photos if you have them.” At that point, Elson said, “He started backing off. . . . He said, ‘I’m only joking.’ Bullshit,” Elson said. “I interpreted it as attempted blackmail.”
Commenting on Elson’s allegation, DeLoach says, “It never happened.”
Reading the Official and Confidential files that survived makes it clear they could have been gathered for no other purpose than blackmail. For example, on June 13, 1958, the head of the Washington field office informed Hoover that, prior to marrying a member of Congress, the member’s wife had been “having an affair with a Negro [and] also at one time carried on an affair with a House Post Office employee.” More recently, the report said, the congressman’s wife “endeavored to have an affair with [an] Indonesian, who declined.”
In response to this tidbit, Hoover wrote back on June 25 that it was “certainly thoughtful of you to advise me of matters of current interest, and I am glad to have the benefit of this information.”
“This was a way of putting congressmen on notice that we had something on them and therefore they would be more disposed to meeting the bureau’s needs and keeping Hoover in power,” says John J. McDermott, who headed the Washington field office and eventually became deputy associate FBI director.
Hoover let presidents know that he had dirt on them as well. For example, on March 22, 1962, Hoover had lunch with President Kennedy. Hoover told him that through bugs and wiretaps, the FBI had learned that Jack was having an affair with Judith Campbell Exner, a twenty five-year-old divorcée. Hoover informed the president that Exner was also having an affair with Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. Because Hoover knew such tidbits, no president would fire him.
As President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “I would rather have him [Hoover] inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”
Many of the confidential files were destroyed after Hoover’s death. One such item that never came out previously was a teletype sent to headquarters from William Simon, who headed the Los Angeles field office, just after the August 5, 1962, death of Marilyn Monroe at her Brentwood, California home. According to DeLoach, who saw the teletype, it said that then Attorney General Robert Kennedy had borrowed Simon’s personal car to see Monroe just before her death.
Confirming this, Simon’s son Greg says, “My father said Robert Kennedy would borrow his white Lincoln convertible. That’s why we didn’t have it on many weekends.” Simon’s daughter Stephanie Branon also confirmed that her father lent his car to Kennedy and remembered that the attorney general once left his Ray-Ban sunglasses in the glove compartment.
As attorney general, Kennedy was entitled to be driven by an FBI security detail. The fact that he chose to use Simon’s personal car is consistent with William Simon’s report to headquarters that he lent his car to Kennedy for the purpose of clandestine meetings with Monroe. Whether his last meeting with her, possibly to break up with her, may have contributed to her suicide is legitimate speculation.
While there is ample evidence that Hoover used the information in his files for blackmail, there was usually no need for it. Simply the perception that he had such information was enough to keep politicians in line.
In the end, the answer to why Hoover did not go after organized crime until he was forced into it is the same reason he maintained files on members of Congress. Above all, Hoover wanted to keep his job. Many members of Congress—not to mention powerful local politicians—had ties to organized crime and might try to unseat him if he went after the Mafia. The Mafia was as powerful as the president. Moreover, as a perfectionist, Hoover did not want to risk losing a case against a powerful figure.
For the same reasons, for purposes of prosecution, Hoover would not investigate corrupt politicians. As FBI director, Hoover had an obligation to go after both Mafia figures and corrupt politicians. Yet until he was pressured into investigating organized crime, those two targets were sacrosanct.
On May 1, 1972, Helen Gandy, Hoover’s personal secretary, handed him the first in a series of exposés by ++Jack Anderson++[], whose column appeared in The Washington Post. Previously, Anderson had enraged Hoover by assigning a reporter to rummage through his trash at home. The resulting column revealed that on Sundays, Hoover ate a hearty breakfast of poached eggs and hotcakes. It also revealed that he brushed his teeth with Ultra Brite, washed with Palmolive, and shaved with Noxzema shaving cream. Now, in his latest column, Anderson revealed that the FBI had conducted surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s sex life.
Besides attending sex orgies, King was having an affair with a young woman in his office, says an agent who monitored wiretaps on King’s office and home phones.
“Besides his home, King had an apartment,” the former agent says. “On Tuesdays, he’d go to the apartment, ostensibly to meditate and write sermons.” In fact, King’s girlfriend would meet him there for sex.
For a man whose lifelong mantra had been “Don’t embarrass the bureau,” the continuing stream of unfavorable disclosures had to be unnerving. Yet Hoover rarely revealed his true personal feelings. Sphinx-like, he projected the same persona to his friends and family as he did to the general public. The only difference was that in person, he showed a sense of humor.
Occasionally Hoover cracked a smile or played a prank. James H. Geer, who would later head the Intelligence Division, recalled the time when a nervous new agent went to shake Hoover’s hand after graduating from training, and mistakenly introduced himself as “Mr. Hoover.”
“Very nice to meet you, Mr. Hoover,” the director responded, smiling.
Shortly before six in the afternoon of May 1, 1972, Tom Moton, Hoover’s FBI chauffeur, drove him to Associate Director Clyde Tolson’s apartment, where the two had dinner. Moton drove Hoover home at 10:15 p.m.
By 8:15 the next morning, Annie Fields, Hoover’s housekeeper, became concerned. By then, she should have heard the sound of the shower. Hoover’s toast, soft- boiled eggs, and coffee were getting cold. James Crawford, Hoover’s previous FBI chauffeur, had come over to plant some roses. Checking on him, he found Hoover’s body sprawled on the oriental rug next to his bed. He touched one of his hands; it was cold.
After examining Hoover’s nude body and consulting with his doctor, the District of Columbia medical examiner, Dr. James L. Luke, attributed the director’s death to “hypertensive cardiovascular disease.” As part of the speculation about his love life, a rumor had gone around that Hoover had an underdeveloped sex organ. That was not true, Dr. Luke tells me.
When Hoover’s will was probated, it turned out that Tolson received his estate, estimated at $560,000, including his home. It was the equivalent of $2.9 million today. Gandy received $5,000, Annie Fields $3,000, and James Crawford $2,000. The bequest to Tolson was the final word on the closeness of their relationship.
Hoover preached that even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided. He disciplined agents for losing their handcuffs. Yet after the death of the imperious FBI director, a Justice Department and FBI investigation found that over the years, Hoover had FBI employees build a front portico and a rear deck on his home at 4936 30th Place, NW, in Washington. They installed a fish pond, equipped with water pump and lights, and they constructed shelves and other conveniences for him. They painted his house, maintained his yard, replaced the sod, installed artificial turf, and planted and moved shrubbery. They built a redwood garden fence and installed a flagstone court and sidewalks.
FBI employees also reset Hoover’s clocks, retouched his wallpaper, and prepared his tax returns. Many of the gifts Hoover received from FBI employees, such as cabinets and bars, had been built by them on government time. Hoover also ordered FBI employees to write Masters of Deceit for him under his name. He pocketed part of the proceeds.
When the FBI and Justice Department finally investigated the abuses in the mid- 1970s at the direction of FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley, “a number of these agents had already retired from the bureau, and we were running all over the country interviewing them,” says Richard H. Ash, who headed the FBI task force. “The agent being interviewed would say, ‘Wait a minute.’ And he would go over to his files, pull out a log about all these things they had done, because it was eating at them that they were being used that way.”
“Hoover [and some of his aides] would be prosecuted under today’s standards. No question of it. And should have been,” Buck Revell, formerly the bureau’s associate deputy director over investigations, says. “Hoover for the money he kept from the books he supposedly wrote but didn’t write. Using government funds and resources for personal gain. And use of government employees to maintain his residence. Again, that is fraud against the government. Taking vacations and putting in vouchers for expenses. Agents have been prosecuted for that. Those things that were somewhat taken for granted back then would be prosecuted today.”
“Hoover did a good job for many years,” says John McDermott, the former Washington field office special agent in charge who became deputy associate FBI director. “He went wrong along the way. He became a martinet. In seeking to prevent embarrassment to the bureau, he equated the bureau with himself. Everyone told him how good he was. He came to believe the exorbitant praise he was receiving. Anybody who can be conned by a flatterer has a character weakness.”
Hoover ran the FBI for forty-eight years. Never again would one man so dominate the bureau.
In 1975 and 1976, the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, headed by Senator Frank Church, held hearings on FBI and CIA abuses. These included surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr., illegal wiretapping and mail openings, and surreptitious entries or “black-bag jobs.”
Prior to that, members of Congress took the position they did not want to know what the FBI and CIA were doing. The Church Committee hearings, as they became known, exposed real abuses and a lack of focus that undercut the mission of those agencies. The hearings ultimately improved both agencies and established an effective oversight mechanism.
When creating the FBI on June 29, 1908, as an unnamed investigative bureau of thirty-four special agents within the Justice Department, Congress had been leery of creating a national police force. Because of that, agents initially were not even empowered to carry weapons.
Despite limitations on its power, questions arose very quickly about the extent of the bureau’s authority and methods. Yet whenever a new threat arose, those questions would be set aside, and Congress would entrust the bureau with new powers.
Reproduced with permission from Crown Publishers.

Education Ain't What It Should Be (Part 5)


Does Decline of Grammar Signify Decadence?
by Henry Makow, Ph.D.
(From Oct. 15, 2011)
November 27, 2013 is a satanic era where the laws of God and nature are distorted and inverted.
Why would the rules of grammar be exempt?
A disturbing sign of cultural decline is that more and more people cannot write a proper sentence.
A sentence is the basic unit of written communication. If we learn only one thing in school, it should be to write a sentence.
Increasingly I am posting submissions and material from other sources. I also post email response. About one in three cannot write a sentence.
A sentence begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. It must contain a noun and a verb, a subject and a predicate. See here.
"The dog (noun) chases (verb) the cat." "The dog" is the subject. "Chases the cat" is the predicate.
Yet I have an acquaintance who somehow attained a Master's Degree in Social Work and cannot write a sentence.
He is engaged in a custody battle and is writing his own affidavits.
"Your inability to write a sentence discredits you," I tell him.
He just laughs and acts like I am an old pedant defending his obsolete turf.
"You sound like one of my old professors," he says.
"I would have flunked you," I say.
He wouldn't appear in court wearing pajamas but thinks nothing of submitting documents that discredit him.
His children's welfare is at stake. He cannot defend them effectively. Everyone who cannot write is similarly handicapped.
Just as our grip on culture in general is becoming more tenuous, increasingly, English grammar is treated like an anachronism.
The popularity of texting may be a factor. People think they can write like they talk, in a stream of consciousness.
But this doesn't explain why schools don't require English proficiency as a condition of graduation. What else is an education for?
Being able to write a sentence is the equivalent of two plus two equals four. I suspect that a subversive force is behind this cultural disintegration. Flouting the rules of grammar is treated like another form of liberation and revolt.
At the same time, the rules for plagiarism are being relaxed and the objectivity of Math is being challenged and fudged.
Ours is a satanic era where the laws of God and nature are distorted and reversed. Why would the rules of grammar be exempt?
I posted a powerful article by "Duran" about how young men are being psychologically destroyed in school.
In that article, Duran's periods were originally all commas and there was little to no capitalization. This talented young man transferred to an all-male private school and graduated with flying colors.
Yet, he still cannot write a sentence, and like my social work friend, doesn't think he needs to. The same applies to some other valued contributors.
I was lucky to attend public high school in Ontario in the 1960's when the rules of writing were drummed into our heads, and we were expected to master a wide range of knowledge: history, geography, sciences, languages, math. My teachers were young, smart and dedicated.
But clearly the education system today is more concerned with grooming youth for gay sex than equipping them with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed.
We are witnessing a return to mass illiteracy. The culture is moving away from text and becoming verbal and visual. The hidden agenda is to dumb down the new generation, and to make them ineffectual and easier to control.
Sheep don't need to write. They just need to bleat.
For comments to the article, go to:  
 *******Common Core a hot topic among parents, teachers
by Justin Corr
Follow: @JCorrKTVB
Posted on November 24, 2013
BOISE -- The already hot topic of education is heating up even more, with many Idaho parents and teachers talking about the new Common Core standards adopted by Idaho schools this year.
The new standards are intended to better prepare students for college and the workforce, but some critics say the standards are too rigid, while others say they're just plain confusing.
"I've attended lots and lots of meetings over the last year about Common Core," said Karma Nalder, who has three kids in the Boise School District. "I was very interested in it, but I didn't really have an opinion whether it was going to be good or bad. It's been about the last month that I've developed a strong opinion, a negative opinion, regarding the Common Core."
Nalder says one of her kids brought home work with correct answers marked wrong, because the child's process in getting that answer was not what was being taught.
"If a student gets to the right answer, it doesn't matter how that student got to the right answer, they should still get credit," said Nalder.
Some other parents from across the nation protested last week, saying the Common Core curriculum is too rigid, and that it relies too heavily on testing and not enough on teaching individual students.
KTVB met with Nalder while she was attending a workshop about Common Core, headed up by Boise State University literacy professor Roger Stewart.
He understands why parents have questions and concerns, but says the Common Core standards can be a great thing for Idaho kids, specifically because they focus on the process, instead of just the answer.
"The Common Core has an emphasis on deeper level processing and higher level thinking," said Stewart.
Stewart also balked at the suggestion of some critics that Common Core is too intrusive.
"The standards don't really tell teachers how to teach, or even, for that matter, to any great degree, what to teach," he said. "There are more outcomes that students or children are to achieve."
Steward tells KTVB that Common Core is valuable because it provides comprehensive details about how much our kids are learning, compared to kids in other states -- kids that they may be competing against for college and jobs.
In Idaho Common Core standards have had broad-based support from the Governor's Education task force, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna, and the Teacher's Union.
But opposition to the standards has been more vocal, and those opposed hope to get the Common Core decision revisited by lawmakers in the next legislation session.
Too much, too young: Should schooling start at age 7?
by David Whitebread and Sue Bingham
18 November 2013 
New Scientist, Magazine issue 2943
England and a few other countries start formal education at age 4 or 5. That's harmful and misguided

AT WHAT age should children start formal schooling? England is one of a few countries to say the answer is as young as 4 years old.
A long-running debate on this question has been reignited by a letter, signed by about 130 early childhood education experts. It called for an extension of informal, play-based preschool provision and for the start of formal schooling in England to be delayed until the age of 7, from the current effective start at age 4.
This would bring it in line with the overwhelming evidence showing that starting school later is best, and the practice in many countries, such as Sweden and Finland. These countries have better academic achievement and child well-being, despite children not starting school until age 7.
The fear is that the English system – which was introduced in 1870 in order to get women back into work, rather than on the basis of any educational benefit to children – is now causing profound damage. A similar story applies in the rest of the UK, and there is pressure for greater formality in preschools in other countries, such as the US.
Why a renewed call for change now? The UK minister for education, Michael Gove, and his team are continuing to advocate earlier formal teaching of literacy and numeracy and earlier formal assessment of children. The head of the UK's Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) has also suggested that schools could take children aged 2. The learning style for this proposal wasn't spelled out, but critics quickly warned against formal methods.
If we consider the contribution of play to children's development as learners, and the harm caused by starting formal learning at 4 to 5 years old, the evidence for a later start is very persuasive.
This evidence comes from anthropological, psychological, neuroscientific and educational studies. For example, research on children's play in extant hunter-gatherer societies, and evolutionary psychology studies of other mammalian young, have identified play as an adaptation that enabled early humans to become powerful learners and problem-solvers.
Neuroscientific studies have supported this view of play as a central mechanism in learning. The 2009 book The Playful Brain: Venturing to the limits of neuroscience, for example, reviewed many studies showing that playful activity leads to the growth of more connections between neurons, particularly in the frontal lobe – the part of the brain responsible for uniquely human higher mental functions.
Experimental psychology has consistently demonstrated the superior learning and motivation arising from playful, as opposed to instructional, approaches to early education.
Yet another study, in 2002, demonstrated that, by the end of their sixth year in school, children in the US whose preschool learning had been academically directed achieved significantly lower marks compared with those who had attended play-based programmes.
Developmental psychologists have identified two mental processes that underpin this relationship between play and learning. First, much of children's play involves pretending that one thing represents another, for example that a cardboard box is a space ship. This ability is thought to be unique to humans and underpins language, drawing and other ways in which we convey meaning.
James Christie at Arizona State University and Kathleen Roskos at John Carroll University in Ohio have reviewed evidence that such an approach to language learning, as opposed to formal instruction, offers the most powerful support for the early development of phonological and literacy skills.
Second, through all kinds of physical, constructional and social play, children become more aware of, and more in control of, their physical and mental activity. This allows them to gradually rely less on adult support and become more "self-regulating", both intellectually and emotionally. A growing number of empirical studies suggest that encouraging play early on enhances this ability, and that educational interventions supporting it are the most powerful predictors of children's development as learners.
There is another important strand of evidence. In 2004, a study of 3000 children, funded by the UK Department of Education, showed that an extended period of play-based preschool education made a significant difference to learning and well-being through the primary school years.
In New Zealand, several key investigations compared children who started formal literacy lessons at age 5 with those who started age 7. They showed that early formal learning doesn't improve reading development, and may even be damaging. By the age of 11, there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups. However, those who started aged 5 developed less positive attitudes to reading and showed poorer text comprehension than those who had started later.
Further research exploring the relative reading achievement of 15-year-olds, across 55 countries, found no significant evidence that an early start brings later benefits.
There is an equally substantial body of research concerning the worrying increase in stress and mental health problems among children whose childhood education is being "schoolified". It suggests strong links with loss of playful experiences and increased achievement pressures.
Taken together, all these strands of evidence raise important and serious questions about the trajectory of early education policy in England.
In the interests of children's academic achievements and their emotional well-being, the UK government should take this evidence seriously.
This article appeared in print under the headline "Too much, too young"
David Whitebread is a developmental psychologist at the University of Cambridge, UK
Sue Bingham is an early childhood education consultant

Also See:
Common Core: Public Education or is it Indoctrination?
(Part 1)
02 April 2013
(Part 2)
23 October 2013
What is Happening in Education?
08 September 2013
Education Ain't What It Should Be (Part 1)
21 April 2008
(Part 2)
12 June 2011
(Part 3)
17 June 2012
(Part 4)
16 May 2013
Your Children Don't Belong to You!
09 April 2013
Corporal Punishment in Schools!
29 January 2012
Agenda 21! The Death Knell of Liberty! (Part 1)
02 March 2011
(Part 2)
22 January 2012
Socialism is Not Disappearing!
15 November 2011
Should We Have Prayer in Schools?
06 July 2011
Don't Blame the Teachers! Blame the Parents!
18 March 2011
Parents! What do You Know about Whole Child Education?
13 August 2010
Sex Education in Ontario Elementary Schools is Going Too Far!!
24 June 2010
Teaching Propaganda or American History?
25 April 2010
What Happened to Education?
30 August 2009
Homeschooling - What About It?
18 June 2009
Who Writes History?
23 July 2007