From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:36:19 -0500 Archived: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:31:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Kimball & Maddow On 'Citizens Hearing...' >From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> >To: <post.nul> >RDate: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:39:25 -0400 >Subject: Re: Kimball & Maddow On 'Citizens Hearing...' >>Dave Haith <visions1.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:17:34 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Kimball & Maddow On 'Citizens Hearing...' ><snip> >>The piece includes some surprises - to me at least. >>One paragraph says: I have burrowed down locally to become >>directly involved with local contactees who have become good >>friends and experienced indirectly communications from the ETs >>themselves. In one case my friends videotaped a craft and after >>I saw it, we had to erase the videotape as requested by the >>ETs." >>Another: >>"Steven Bassett and the Citizen Hearing are taking controversy >>because his donor who is making another documentary using the >>Hearing, is paying former members of Congress $20,000 each to >>attend the Hearing. Excuse me, but considering the fear of >>ridicule and the corrupt nature of politics today, how are you >>going to get members of Congress at a hearing without a large >>payment?" >>If ETs want the video erased they are surely unlikely to be >>delighted about the two Steves' disclosure efforts! >>Is $4,000 a day the going rate to hire ex-Congressmen? It sounds >>outrageous to me but as a Brit but I don't know - you tell me. >As a staffer at the US House for over 25 years, I am amazed at >the claim that Members of Congress and their Staff have been >attending various Events sponsored by Greer and Bassett. IMO, >their claims are made to attract financial support from donors, >who are given a false sense that the money will actually have an >impact. In fact, most of those Events, as I understand it, have >not been money makers and the money is needed just to keep the >bandwagon rolling. >Bassett had claimed to be the only UFO Lobbyist on Capitol Hill, >when in fact I never found him to be registered as such, >officially. I believe that his heart is in the right place, but >claims made regarding attendance and interest have often been >exaggerations from all that I've been able to determine on the >inside. >In the 90s, but the Disclosure Project was holding week long >events in DC, one Staffer DID attend out of personal interest. >But when I contacted her via House email to ask her about it, >she was extremely upset and said she couldn't talk about it at >work. Now, if the goal is to get the Government to face the >facts, how can that happen if those who attend are afraid to >admit it? There are those (both Members and Staff) who have a >personal interest in the subject of UFOs, but it's a topic >discussed around the water cooler, unless a response to >constituent's letter is being formulated. That usually revolves >around how to respond without upsetting them, and whenever >possible the question is forwarded to another Agency for an >"official" response. You can guess how that goes. >I would be very interested in monetary payments made to Members >of Congress to attend an Event, since I believe that would >violate House and Senate rules. Indeed, in the highly charged >political environment we now live in, I would be surprised if >ANY current Member of Congress would admit interest and become a >target for criticism by an opponent. And the concept if their >taking money to attend, even if legal, would become the brunt of >political ads and ridicule. I should add that Members of >Congress do receive Corporate funds to offset the costs of >travel to special events, but that would have to relate to >Congressional oversight in some way and it would not end up in >either their Operating or Campaign budgets. One is not able to >pay a Member of Congress to support an issue. >A "former" Member of Congress is under different rules and >regulations and recently I've seen at least one former >Representative lend his support for Disclosure. But, they have >no Office to lose in the next election and one might argue that >it's a way to keep their name in the news. More importantly, >most former Members of Congress have little influence in >Congress, other than the contacts they've retained. And, given >the current turnover given the political realities of today, >those "contacts" often move on fairly quickly. >Those who believe that all they have to do is package the >information correctly to spark interest are fooling themselves, >IMO. Skepticism is difficult enough to overcome, but that >barriers are far greater than that when dealing with Congress. Steve, Thank you very much for your informed and sane perspective on the embarrassing exhibition to which these publicity (and worse) hounds are subjecting the rest of us. Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp