Tuesday, October 8, 2013

This is the latest post from "Morena" who sends her thoughts on email,  its worth reading.  Don't worry,  I sent her instructions on how to "post comments"......she should be a rule-abiding blog commenter soon enough.....

MITmichael: you could not find any evidence of the Dunham CIA activities but many of the fellows who contributed to this blog found lots of evidence so I hope you are satisfied now.
On the global communist threat....I speak from personal knowledge is not from books but from actual experiences... living thru it. I grew up in Nicaragua where I came face to face with the communist threat and reality....I remembered my brothers in exile...Cuban men leaving from our coast to free their country...My father was the commander of Bluefields. Later as an adult, I met some of the brave Cuban pilots who survived the Bay of Pigs and the daughter of the American pilot who died and Castro kept his body in a freezer for 20+ years. She is now a dear friend. I went to her trial against Castro, right here in Miami. I cried when I heard her testimony.  I know history first hand. Not had the time to write a book yet.
While attending a private catholic girls high school   many of my high school girlfriends were recruited and ended up in Cuba and Russia for further indoctrination. I never bought into the lie then and I can detect a communist or lie when I see one.
Obama is a fraud and liar.
I have traveled to over 110 countries extensively at my own expense during the past 40 years
Currently: ChinaCubaLaosNorth Korea, and Vietnam.
Formerly Communist countries (by current name):

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall...more than half of the land masses and population were under Soviet controlled....a fact.
I FOLLOWED THE STRUGGLE CLOSELY...WATCH IT DEVELOPED to many lives close to me where at stake including my father who became a political prisoner in the Marxist Sandinistas Jails. Another episode for another time.
The Jesuit Order and President Carter intentionally or unintentinally were instrumental in helping the the spread of communist oppresion throughout the globe in their quest for world dominance.
I recommend you read "Nicaragua Betrayed" by Jack Cox. The most shocking or interesting part in the book is when Somoza is reflecting on his country situation and a thought came to his mind "Is it possible that the President of the United States is a COMMUNIST?" He was referring to Jimmy Carter: a communist sympathizer.
Anastasio Somoza Debayle was a good man and leader.. Nicaraguans enjoyed peace and prosperity like never before or after. We had free press and elections.You will never read this on any books. You had to live there to know. Our press was free our people were free....not one left the country until the 1979 communist take over...Nicaragua immediately suffered a massive exodus of Nicaraguans...1/3 of the population, more than 1,000,000 left...why would they leave communist paradise?  to live in exile....including 98% of my entire 400 member extended family. My family had lived in Nicaragua 400 years...but 98% left because life was not possible under such horrendous oppression as a communist oppression...hope you have read some books about this phenomenon because apparently life experiences do not count on your book


  1. My closest colleague in my government career was Col. David H. Strier, who was a counter-intelligence officer in Habana from 1956-1959. I believe him when he counted to me that he and other American personnel covertly armed Castro and aided him and other student rebels in overthrowing the Batista regime. Then after that everything went sour, and Castro ended up turning to the Soviet Union for survival and Cuba has been a horrible, poverty-stricken communist state ever since.

    I am well aware that Marxists of different kinds existed and still exist throughout Latin America, and some were firmly in the Soviet camp and others were not.

    What was done throughout Latin America by the United States to suppress all Marxists of all kinds was, I submit, worse than what would have happened if the Marxists had just been allowed to take over.

    The US sponsored savage and brutal tyrannies in Nicaragua, Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, Brazil, Equador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina and Chile.

    In the last twenty years the US has stopped this repressive activity and the result has been that Marxist governments have come to power through elections in places like Brazil, Bolivia, Ecquador, and Venezuela with there being no harm to any American or anyone else.

    As for your emotional description of "brave Cuban pilots" and so forth I can only say that there were a lot of brave Cubans that fought on both sides of the Cuban conflict, on several continents, for the last 50 years. Implying that only the Cubans on your side of anti-communism are brave is misleading in the extreme.

    In the 1970s the Cuban government sent soldiers to fight in Africa in several places, and the United States fought against them claiming that they were acting as proxies for the Soviet Union when this was untrue. It's now known from Soviet archives what the CIA secretly knew all along - that the Cubans in Ethiopia, Angola and other places were not there because the Russians ordered them there. The Russians didn't want the Cubans in all these places and it was Castro alone who directed those interventions. And the Cubans fought very bravely and defeated much superior forces to themselves in all their engagements, in which they fought against the South Africans and others armed heavily by the United States.

    As for Nicaragua I hope you're not going to claim that the Somoza regime was benign. The Somaza were brutal killers and torturers and the Sandanistas were a relief though by no means perfect. God knows no government is perfect, certainly not ours in America, so when critics of the Sandanistas hold out Sainthood as the standard then I know they're pulling my leg.

    The fact of the 1980s contra war was that the contras were mostly, though not all, brutal torturers, killers, rapists and rural terrorists which preyed on the rural population of Nicaragua for years without accomplishing anything. It was all for nothing, and the reason is the same as why Castro lasted so long in Cuba --- there is no alternative.

    The people of Nicaragua never accepted the contras because they didn't represent a democratic alternative to the Sandanistas. The contras only represented the butchery of Somaoza.

    In Cuba the reason why the Cuban people never rose up against Castro in the Bay of Pigs in 1961 or thereafter is because as bad as Castro is the only alternative is another American-imposed Batista by one name or another.

    As for Frank Davis the "evidence" cited is only conjecture. There are no facts there.

    1. Until the day that David Stier died he was still supportive of Castro, and spoke highly of him and AGAINST American policy toward Cuba.

      It may be hard to accept but Strier was second only to James Angleton in the Counter-Intelligence area in CIA, and he was always supportive of Castro.

      This is what I mean when I tell people on this board that there is no "CIA line" about anything.

      Within CIA there is and always has been huge, colossal differences about even the most important topics.

      It's a very strange place.

  2. Obama is a Communist all right and an Alinsky Protoge: Top Down Bottom up Spread the Wealth Around (ObamaCare is the introduction to Statism).

    But Obama is not ordinary. He has LINEAGE AND IT IS NOT a unremarkable family, the Dunhams.

    Compare his physical appearance and bone structure to Malcolm X Little Shabazz and then research his bond with Calypso Louis Farrakhan.

    1. Patriarch, you're like a dog with a bone, you just can't let go, even when all the marrow is gone.

      People in Seattle do remember Stanley Ann Dunham with a young mulatto baby boy when she was going to the University of Washington.

      Patriarch, you are tantalized by the prospect of a child of Malcolm X, but there are too many unknowns and, no, I'm not going to pay a registration fee to follow that particular rabbit down the proverbial rabbit hole.

  3. Well, well, subtlety from Mit. At the time I was a Reaganite and supported most any U. S. militaristic policy, including the contras.

    But, since then, I've learned the contra effort was more about overthrowing a government, simply because it was independent from Washington D. C.that didn't kowtow to Washington D. C. and threatened the financial interests of American transnational corporate elite and didn't really have much to do with the spread of Soviet international communism and the contras were brutal, as Mit points out.

    Somoza shielded American interests. I'm torn, it is quite possible to support legitimate and reasonable American investment abroad, which Somoza did, but the methods of attacking the Sandinista was quite similar to the Syrian covert operation, today. Essentially a proxy war using the most brutal methods. American motive was not without a greedy, self-interested component.

    So, there you go, I agree with Mit, imagine that.

    1. Reasonable investment return from reasonable capital investments in a foreign country can be legitimately defended, but unreasonable investment return and rapacious tactics and strategies for gross exploitation and domination can not be defended.

    2. At the time I was drawn into the anti-Soviet/pro-taliban effort in Afghanstan because I was misled as to the causes.

      Once there I was assigned to bribe journalists worldwide to publish fabricated stories of what was happening there, and that's how I gained the actual story as to how it came about, etc., which was all contrary to what I had previously thought.

      I guess that was the beginning of wisdom.

    3. Once I learned that the American narrative about Afghanistan was bogus it was pretty clear that the Reagan narrative was bogus about central America also, including General Haig's speech that all of Central America was on a Soviet "hit list."

      Many, many people in CIA were opposed to the policies in Central America and Afghanistan, and it was only those particular hard chargers, or black hats, which volunteered for those Task Forces which participated.

      You can get a hint of that if you look up Mel Goodman's appearances on Youtube where he reflect this dissent within CIA about those missions.

    4. One of the few hard chargers from the Afghan Task Force still around is Mike Vickers because he was young at the time and he moved on to another agency.

    5. I haven't gotten into Melvin Goodman's opinion in detail, yet, but one thing jumped out at me and caught my eye:

      "Bush’s marriage of the CIA & the Pentagon..."

      This reeks of danger, in my opinion.

      I'll admit I can't articulate the danger.

      To some extent there has always been interaction at some level, particularly in active war zones.

      But it seems to me the military and the CIA should be distinct and separate branches.

      I guess I'm worried the CIA will bastardize the military. Also, in my opinion, the CIA should be brought back to its original primary function: Gathering foreign intelligence, as opposed to clandestine paramilitary activities.

      Before World War Two, the U. S., as far as I know, beyond the "gun boat" diplomacy in Central America, didn't run around the world toppling regimes.

      At least "gun boat" diplomacy was out in the open, whereas CIA activity centered around covert operations.

      The CIA should be active regarding the gathering of intelligence, but either inactive or passive regarding regime change. Covert regime change operations is part of secret diplomacy, secretly arrived at, with little or no input from the American People, thus, not subject to the American Peoples' approval.

      This sets up a situation where elite insiders shape the policy, thus, a tendency for special interests to promote activities which effect their individual interests, but have little or no broader vital national security interest for the United States, as a whole.

      But for the elite insiders, particularly elite transnational interests it is easy to imagine and then assert that their particular interests are U. S. vital national interests.

      That is why the CIA has been a bailiwick of transnational corporate interests.

      Transnational corporations, their interests, and objectives should not dominate U. S. diplomatic relations. Rather they should be a part of a balanced approach to diplomatic relations.

      These transnational corporations should be willing to publically come into the arena of debate and make their case, subject to disagreement and restraint of the American People.

    6. Imagine that, looking out my window right now to see if I see a blue moon.

  4. People who criticize the Castro regime should remember one thing in his favor.....

    He was more effective than any other person or nation in working against the CIA.

    Since 1970 each and every agent CIA developed in Cuba turned out to be double-agents. It was over thirty of them and each and every one was able to out-smart the CIA because the CIA people who wanted the anti-Castro mission were dim-wits and because Castro's people are highly motivated and very intelligent.

    For thirty years every bit of intl from Cuba was tainted.

    1. And when I think about how devoted David Strier was to Castro I can see how this could have happened. Despite Castro's terrible flaws he still had a cause which inspired enormous conviction.

  5. Hi, Dr. Pieczenik, I just added your page and blog to my blog's links. I have been listening to you on the Alex Jones youtube channel. As for Castro, I think part of the reason things soured was because he went after the corruption and sexual evils and shut down the Mafia Casinos there. Cost them a lot of money. There is a scene in The Godfather (part 2? I forget) where there is this big conference in Havana, celebrating what they were "accomplishing" with a govt. they could control. While that event was part of a fiction, the situation described was very real.

    Castro became persona non grata with them, and people in our govt. they had connections with, dating back to that deal with the devil in the person of Lucky Luciano in WW 2 who was released from prison here, to go organize the Mafia in Italy to help the Allied landing there. I think it is in the book CIA AND THE POLITICS OF HEROIN that it is mentioned that we had the heroin problem in the US almost stamped down, until after the Luciano deal, then it took off again.

    So naturally Castro turned to whoever who would help him, which meant the USSR which was the only other game in town back then. God must have been helping him, or he wouldn't have survived so long with all those enemies (CIA) and only semi helpful exploitive friends (USSR). Meanwhile, JFK said in a speech that we should help legitimate freedom interests against dictators before the commies could move in an exploit them, which of course our elitists, and the military industrial complex, and others, didn't like. That statement alone would have put him in the crosshairs, but I think that all or most of the conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK are correct, because he pissed off everybody. A perfect storm of converging interests in seeing him dead.

    1. Referring to JFK's assassination, Nixon in a televised interview stated " I heard that LBJ did not like being number 2 " Amazing statement from a President.