Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When Flying Saucers Attack!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi all,

    I'm glad you liked the history lesson Mike.

    J.D., as someone has put down (actually two people - Stan made a similar comment), the supposed "Gay President" was James Buchanan.

    Up to about twenty years ago, the story was that Buchanan was our only bachelor President. Actually he was one of two bachelors elected to the Presidency - the other was Stephen Grover Cleveland, who was our second bachelor President for about one third of his first term (1885-1886), when he married his deceased partner's daughter Frances Folsom. She was in her early 20s (and was one of our most attractive looking First Ladies). He was 50 at the time. The marriage produced about five children, one a young girl name Ruth, was honored by a confection known as "BABY RUTH" to this day
    (no it was not named for the famed "Sultan of Swat" George Herman "Babe" Ruth). Cleveland died in 1908. Frances remarried in 1913 a professor named Sayre. She died in 1948.

    Buchanan had been engaged in his younger days, and then something occurred that his biographers and historians can't explain. The engagement was broken without warning, and within a month the girl died. The girl's family never forgave Buchanan - there has been suspicion that the girl may have committed suicide due to the collapse of the engagement. In any case Buchanan never sought another female companion. His niece, Harriet Lane (not to be confused with the female victim of original Whitechapel murderer - dismemberer Henry Wainwright), was his First Lady from 1857 to 1861. Buchanan's niece was supposedly very gifted as a substitute First Lady.

    Now, was James Buchanan gay? The evidence suggesting he was is based on his relationship (while a Senator from Pennsylvania - Buchanan remains the only President born in Pennsylvania, and his home "Wheatland" still stands there) with a fellow bachelor Senator, William Rufus King of Alabama.
    King and Buchanan shared bachelor digs in Washington for over a decade.
    Keeping in mind that homosexuality was not openly discussed in polite society
    (the most notable exception was some of the escapades of Lord Byron), King and Buchanan were soon surreptitiously referred to in Washington social circles (apparently from President Jackson on down) as "Ms Fancy and Aunt Nancy". But no surviving letters suggest anything completely.

    In the Polk Administration Buchanan served as our Secretary of State. In the 1850s he would be our Minister to Great Britain. While there his old friend
    King was elected Vice President with Frankilin Pierce in 1852. But King was dying of tuberculosis. The wisdom of this nomination and election (a total disaster as it turned out - Pierce is one of our weakest Presidents) was seen in January 1853, just before Pierce could arrive in Washington for the inauguration. Pierce and his wife Jane and his only surviving son Benjamin were on a train that was wrecked. Franklin and Jane survived, but Benjamin was crushed to death before their eyes (Jane always felt this was God's punishing her husband for his ambition - it ruined the marriage and helped ruin Pierce's chances for a stable administration). News of the disaster reached Washington, and was told in the Senate and House of Representatives. But the news was garbled, and it was believed Pierce had been killed (not Benjy). Both houses declared a national period of mourning for the President-Elect.

    Now, if it had been true - than on March 4, 1853 President Fillmore would have been attending the inauguration of Vice President William Rufus King in Washington, who was dying of tuberculosis! Think of it.

    It did not happen - Franklin and a reclusive and sad Jane arrived in Washington and Franklin delivered the first inauguration speech delivered by a President named Franklin (four more would subsequently be delivered from 1933 to 1945 by a better President named Franklin). King, once he was award that he would not have to struggle along forming his own cabinet and such, retreated to Cuba. It was believed the sultry climate of Havana would help the poor man. By special order of Congress King was inaugurated Vice President of the U.S. and President of the U.S. Senate in Havana (the only time this has ever happened). He lasted nine weeks before he died in his office.

    Imagine - if Franklin Pierce had been killed in that train wreck, and William Rufus King had been inaugurated President (in Washington or Havana) the King administration would have lasted until May - about two months, making it twice as long as the William Henry Harrison administration of March - April 1841!!

    King was in the news recently when the state of Oregon voted to save the name of one of their counties as "King" County, but to say it was named for Reverend Martin Luther King, not for Vice President William Rufus Devane King.
    The reason - despite King's temporary holding of the second highest elected office in the U.S., he was a committed Southern racist and supporter of Slavery. This issue was the subject of comment in the New York Times a year or two ago.

    Buchanan's four year term followed Pierce's and was equally poor. The South seceeded in his term, and he did not show any strength in stopping the crisis (he felt they had no right to seceed, but that the Federal Government had no right to stop them).

    By the way, one of Buchanan's cousins was the composer Stephen Foster. I discovered this when I read several biographies about Foster a number of years ago.

    Best wishes,

    Jeff

    Comment


    • sdreid:

      I had thought that "high crimes and misdemeanors" must refer to actual crimes and . . . well . . . misdemeanors. In a discussion with an appellate attorney on the issue, he return'd from his research and proclaimed that, no, it is whatever the House defines. For example, the law that the House successfully impeached Andrew Johnson for breaking was later considered unconstitutional. This does not mean it overturned his impeachment. It may prove political suicide for congressmen to impeach a President over something "made up" unless the President is so unpopular no one cares. However, these days, one can always find something to declare a misdemeanor.

      Granted, I am quoting someone else, so if there is any alternative, I am more than welcome to have it--I am not the "expert!" My specific question was in regards to whether or not an impeachment could be "ruled" invalid since "we don't like him!" is neither a "high crime" nor a "misdemeanor!" However, I was assured this is not the case. It is whatever the House accepts. This is why, I think, the more Moonbat Left is so upset with congressional Democrats that they have not simply impeached Bush . . . "because!" As stated, cooler heads--including Pelosi--understand that when the Republicans regain control, some day, they will promptly "impeach back" any sitting Democratic President, and the whole process loses all semblance of propriety. Congress has its own ways to hamstring a President--as Andrew Johnson soon discovered!

      Nevertheless, while the House has sole discretion on impeachment, it is the Senate that has sole discretion on conviction. The Senate can literally take a dump on the articles of impeachment and have their pages beat up the congressional pages in the back! In a sense, this is what happened in the Clinton impeachment. Even the Republican leadership--which controlled the Senate--felt "yeah . . . sure . . . but we are not going to remove him for it!" We can debate until the bovines return to their domiciles--was it political reality or a simple refusal to hand Gore the Presidency and near-certain re-election--the bottom-line is the Republicans did not have the 2/3rds necessary to convict either way, and if they did, I doubt they would have. Of course, we will never know.

      The House appoints "managers" to present the articles, and some of them expected a warm reception and some influence in the Clinton Senate trial. They were told to stuff it. Curiously, there was an attempt to simply refuse to go to trial on the part of Democratic Senators . . . one prominent and very liberal Senator broke ranks on that: he was impeached, he needed to be tried. Still, the result was the same: "go away, smelly people!" My point [ZZzzzZZzzZ--Ed.] is that the Senate could probably have just ruled the "trial" being "no, we vote YOU smell" and that would be that!

      Back to Johnson, there was a determination to remove him. However, a few critical Republican Senators--who hated Johnson--refused to remove him for what were political reasons. JFK's ghost-written book, Profiles in Courage, tells the story of one of the leaders who voted for acquittal.

      Blah . . . blah . . . basically means that the processes are completely separate and controlled by their respective houses.

      Again, to my recollection, what forced Nixon to resign was the realization that enough Republican Senators made it privately clear--to Gen. Al Haig methinks--that they would not prevent conviction.

      As for Nixon not treating the oil embargo as an act of war . . . to my understanding, requesting a declaration of war is the President's prerogative. Perhaps Mayerling can recall a case, but I do not believe the Congress has ever tried to "declare war" and the President refuse to run it. Conceivable that could happen. Congress controls the "purse strings," but they have no military authority. So the President could refuse to fight. Obviously it is usually the other way around: the Congress can tell the President, "hey, like, no, you can't spend any money prosecuting that war on Canada!" Oddly enough, this is the darker side of Iran-Contra, which pissed-off both Democrats, Republicans, and, even, the Administration--setting up an "off the shelf fund" that NO ONE--according to "Ollie"--President or Congress--would have control over. Republican Senator Warren Rudman famously grilled North over that little tid-bit!

      Blah . . . blah . . . so I am not sure refusal to sell oil would count as an act of war, but be that as it may, it did not seem like anyone wanted to invade Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries.

      Nixon clearly obstructed justice. Again to my recollection, one young Republican Senator passionately defended him in the Senate . . . until he learned that Nixon effectively lied to him. I think that killed Nixon. You do not want to alienate your few supporters!

      Similarly--to tangent this further--the whole Terry Schiavo disaster is a wonderful example of separation of powers. Technically, the Congress defines the jurisdiction of the Federal courts--what they can or cannot "hear." So . . . in a wonderful example of political opportunism and cowardice depending on the party, both Houses voted a law directing the federal court to re-hear the whole thing. Many Democrats were absent on "fact-finding-missions" to Schennectady . . . Bush scurried in from vacation, signed it, ran back to vacation, and then gave Jeb an "atomic" wedgie for creating this horrid "no-win" scenario!

      The Supreme Court?

      They not only overturned it . . . they basically--all of them . . . even "t3h 3v1l conservatives"--took turns taking a dump on it. They refused to hear the appeal of its declaration of "no!" from the lower respective federal courts. Their clerks did beat up the congressional pages, stole their milk money, and then hung them up by their tighty-whities from the Washington monument!

      That was it. Decades ago, a Supreme Court Justice quipped, "we are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final!"

      This lesson in American Civics brought to you by . . . Lysol! Feeling "unfresh?"

      Mayerling:

      I would doubt anyone could rule Grover as gay . . . not . . . that there is anything wrong with that. . . . As you probably well know, he was accused of having a child out of wedlock--I believe he did to recollection. Anyways, Republicans taunted him with "Ma! Ma! Where's my Pa?!!"

      After he won, Democrats responded, "Off to the White House, Ha! Ha! Ha!"

      Whenever anyone complains about "negative campaigns" these days, I have to laugh. They have no idea!

      My reference on Buchanan is packed away, so take this with the big scoop of salt. To my recollection, he and King had very affectionate letters, Buchanan would whine a lot when they were separated, and "society people" [Tm.--Ed.] would joke about "Mr. and Mrs. King." Perhaps it was just something that people did not discuss openly since it was not open. Buchanan was an infamous failure at "cool." He was famously mistaken for being a servant/coachman by Buckingham Palace "people" when he came to be presented as the American ambassador! Be that as it may, if he was--not . . . that there is anything wrong with that!--he certainly was not flamboyant or open about it. Mayhaps it was something that was not discussed?

      Your discussion of King is fascinating. It is amazing how things could have changed with an event here and there!

      Yours truly,

      --J.D.

      Comment


      • Trying to wreck our economy was not an act of war on the scale of a Pearl Harbor but it wasn't that far off from what got us into the Spanish-American War or World War One in my view. Why not invade an oil rich country? We do that frequently.
        This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

        Stan Reid

        Comment


        • Originally posted by sdreid View Post
          Trying to wreck our economy was not an act of war on the scale of a Pearl Harbor but it wasn't that far off from what got us into the Spanish-American War or World War One in my view.
          Oh you can make that argument; you just cannot turn Nixon's disagreement with it into an impeachable offense--particularly when, to my knowledge--no one else was clamoring for that.

          Besides . . . you only had to wait a year or two for Ford's successful "WIN button" response!



          Why not invade an oil rich country? We do that frequently.
          Not for oil.

          . . . and anticipating the 137 pages that always spew forth on this topic . . . whatever one feels is "t3h r34l" reason for kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, protecting Saudi Arabia, and then later ending his regime . . . it did not produce cheap gas!! Bringing democracy and ponies . . . to "money for HaliCheneyburtonargh!" . . . the reality is it did not bring cheap oil.

          So . . . people . . . can we avoid that? I will promise not to start discussions on textual criticism and the manifest superiority of Kurosawa over that hack Lucas . . . with slides . . . and dancing cats!

          AND NO ONE WANTS THAT!!

          . . . because I will do it!

          Back to your point, THEN we did not have the military superiority, and there WAS another Super Power [Tm.--Ed.] that did want a foot-hold in the Middle East which WOULD be happy to oppose any attack we made on the Arab nations. They would also see it as a matter of self-preservation. One cannot expect the Soviet Union to just watch as the tried to conquer the Middle East, if that was even possible. To do that--to control the oil--would require massive amounts of destruction. Hiroshima would seem like "urban renewal." Somewhere . . . General William "Fire? What Fire?" Tecumseh Sherman would say, "Woah dude!" The rest of the world--except for Montreal--they hate everyone!--would not be too supportive of that either.

          Yours truly,

          --J.D.

          Comment


          • We weren't the only ones embargoed. So we didn't do anything because we were afraid of the Soviets? Were they afraid of us when they went into Afghanistan?
            This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

            Stan Reid

            Comment


            • Afghanistan had no oil, it was a backwater adjacent to its territory, and Carter was President.

              Again, "controlling the oil" involve removing those who would seek to oppose it. You are dealing with a country unwilling to level North Vietnam, parts of China, et cetera for . . . for . . . for . . . what? "Domino Theory?" Opposing Communism?

              Yours truly,

              --J.D.

              Comment


              • Imperialist agenda. Take control of the Middle East, and then you can continue to drive your petroleum guzzling machines. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

                Yours Truly,
                Plang

                Comment


                • Took delivery of three new books this morning,

                  The Day After Roswell, by Philip Corso

                  The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know, by Kal K Korff!!

                  Top Secret / Majic: Operation Majestic-12 by Stanton Friedman

                  Still reading "SHE" by H.Rider Haggard so they are on the backburner for now!
                  Regards Mike

                  Comment


                  • Hi Mike, been through Roswell many times. Something IS going on there.
                    Among other things, there are all these buildings and complexes with closed gates, with remote control entry. No signs indicating WHO they are. By that I mean, it is not like a business who have signs in front indicating their reason for being there, like a food processing plant or anything. There are Highways, that bypass the city core, this is where you notice the mysterious nature of things, at 3 am in the morning.
                    The lampposts through the cow fields remain a mystery.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mike Covell View Post
                      Took delivery of three new books this morning,

                      The Day After Roswell, by Philip Corso

                      The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know, by Kal K Korff!!

                      Top Secret / Majic: Operation Majestic-12 by Stanton Friedman

                      Still reading "SHE" by H.Rider Haggard so they are on the backburner for now!
                      You need to add some books by Philip Klass . . . particularly on the Majestic hoax.

                      --J.D.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Plang,
                        I have quite a large number of books on Roswell already, I saw those three quite cheap and thought they might be worth getting,
                        Here are just a few of my Roswell related books,

                        Crash at Corona, A definitive Study of the Roswell Incident

                        Witness to Rowell

                        The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell

                        UFO Crash at Roswell

                        UFO Retrievals

                        Cosmic Crashes

                        And of course every ufo book has a section devoted to the case!!
                        Regards Mike

                        Comment


                        • Hi JD,

                          I have some stuff by Klass but it is still boxed from when we moved, I have a couple of documentaries with him and Friedman debating which are intresting.
                          Regards Mike

                          Comment


                          • He takes apart the UFO enthusiasts pretty nicely and politely.

                            I mean the guy locates the sources of forged signatures.

                            --J.D.

                            Comment


                            • Would that be the infamous "Trueman" signature!!

                              There was the autopsy footage some years ago, which turned out to be fake, but some UFO Researcher stated they could "See Trueman" stood behind the glass!

                              This was only available in the £30, cut of the footage, but it appears it was some bloke who was a friend of the hoaxer and not Trueman after all
                              Regards Mike

                              Comment


                              • Actually, this is relevant to Ripperology. You have heard of those "discussions" over the relative medical skill of Jack?

                                The first thing noticed about that autopsy footage was the "pathologists" held their instruments incorrectly!

                                Yours truly,

                                --J.D.

                                P.S. Now . . . just look directly into this instrument:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X