CIA Covert Action in Iran, Vietnam, Laos, the Congo, Cuba, and Guatemala: Documentary Film (1965)

thefilmarchive.org DVD: www.amazon.com A covert operation (also as CoveOps or covert ops) is a military, intelligence or law enforcement operation that is carried clandestinely and, often, outside of official channels. Covert operations aim to fulfill their mission objectives without any parties knowing who sponsored or carried out the operation. It is normally sponsored by taxes from the government. Under United States law, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is the sole US Government agency legally allowed to carry out Covert Action. The CIA’s authority to conduct Covert Action comes from the National Security Act of 1947. President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 titled in 1984. This order defined covert action as “special activities”, both political and military, that the US Government could legally deny. The CIA was also designated as the sole authority under the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act and in Title 50 of the United States Code Section 413(e). The CIA must have a “Presidential Finding” issued by the President of the United States in order to conduct these activities under the Hughes-Ryan amendment to the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act. These findings are then monitored by the oversight committees in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives. As a result of this framework, the CIA “receives more oversight from the Congress than any other agency in the federal government.” The Special Activities Division (SAD) is a division of
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Film Fun Magazine (October 1933) … The Ootchy – Kootchy Rule — Reality can’t possibly compete (June 15, 2012 / 25 Sivan 5772) …

Film Fun Magazine (October 1933) … The Ootchy – Kootchy Rule — Reality can’t possibly compete (June 15, 2012 / 25 Sivan 5772) …
Virginia Union University
Image by marsmet545
Thirdly, the problem with romance and ootchy-kootchy is that it’s all about some fictional fantasy. Original romance was all about unrequited love. It could stay in the clouds but it never actually existed.

It was never required to withstand the test of dirty diapers, unpaid bills and leaky faucets. Dinner doesn’t have to be made, homework doesn’t require doing and the garbage doesn’t have to be taken out. Reality can’t possibly compete.

True romance is in the giving, not the taking.

…….. All images are copyrighted by their respective authors ……..
.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
.
…..item 1)…. aish.com … www.aish.com/f … HOME FAMILY MOM WITH A VIEW ….

The Ootchy-Kootchy Rule

Why couples who show the most public affection are more likely to divorce.

June 15, 2012 / 25 Sivan 5772
by Emuna Braverman
.
……………………………………

img code photo … The Ootchy-Kootchy Rule … HOME FAMILY MOM WITH A VIEW blog …

media.aish.com/images/MomOotchyKootchyRule230x150.jpg

……………………………………
.

www.aish.com/f/mom/The_Ootchy-Kootchy_Rule.html

People who define marriage mostly as romance are more likely to put their own needs over the needs of the partnership and 1-1/2 times more like to divorce. These are the 2010 findings of the University of Virginia National Marriage Project. And they accord perfectly with my husband’s “Ootchy-Kootchy” rule. In his experience, the couples that are the mostly physically demonstrative in public (and that have the most nauseating pet names for each other!) – you know the ones I mean – have the lowest rate of marital success.

What gives?

I think there are a few reasons that explain the high divorce rate.

One is that frequently all that public display is exactly that – a performance for the audience. It’s not about how you feel about each other; it’s more about how the world feels about you. “Look at that gorgeous couple.” “They seem so in love.” It’s all about the image, the show. It’s about a romantic scene (too many movies?) and not about reality. It may even be about being in love with the idea of love. But it’s certainly not evidence of a deep and committed relationship.

Click here to receive Aish.com’s free weekly email.

Secondly, most people who truly care about each other, while occasionally affectionate in public, recognize that the true expression of love is an intimate and private concern. They don’t want to cheapen it by public proclamation and performance. They don’t want their privacy violated; their unique and special relationship gawked at by complete strangers, widely observed, or even marveled at. It will take away some of its special character. It’s too precious to risk.

Thirdly, the problem with romance and ootchy-kootchy is that it’s all about some fictional fantasy. Original romance was all about unrequited love. It could stay in the clouds but it never actually existed. It was never required to withstand the test of dirty diapers, unpaid bills and leaky faucets. Dinner doesn’t have to be made, homework doesn’t require doing and the garbage doesn’t have to be taken out. Reality can’t possibly compete.

—–True romance is in the giving, not the taking.

And yet it’s reality and not romance that ultimately has more staying power. And in that reality, it’s the people who don’t put their own needs first who have the most successful marriages. It’s not about giving up on romance but it’s about recognizing that true romance is in the giving, not the taking. It’s putting your spouse’s needs first. It’s about attending to the internal demands of the marriage and ignoring the rest of the world. All that counts is the two of you.

No one else needs to see the affection to prove the relationship is real. No one else needs to experience the giving. In fact, a truly holy union doesn’t allow anyone else in, particularly strangers at the mall or bus stop!

Keeping a relationship private also helps preserve it. The more public exposure, the more the intensity of a situation dissipates. We need to guard our relationships from external perspectives and interference.
It’s time to put the affection back in the home where it belongs. It’s time to put the romance back on the fiction shelf. And it’s time to dig deep and put in the effort to make a substantial relationship, based on shared goals and values, and good character. And it’s time to be much more concerned about our private behavior than about public response.
.
.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
.
.

Global Content Partners film crew member looks on during USACE interview

Global Content Partners film crew member looks on during USACE interview
Virginia Network
Image by USACEpublicaffairs
FORT BELVOIR, Va.— David Hirsch, a member of a Global Content Partners film crew, looks on as co-worker Mike Fitzsimmons (background) interviews Col. Andy Backus (shown in reflection) during a visit to the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital project site Nov. 5, 2010. Backus is the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District, which is managing design and construction of the new hospital. The crew filmed Backus on the site for an planned "Army Elite" program on the Military Channel television network. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photo by Marc Barnes)

In what film did the World’s Largest Tea Pot In Chester Western Virginia appear???

Question by john m: In what film did the World’s Largest Tea Pot In Chester Western Virginia appear???
Hilljacks

Best answer:

Answer by jan51601
I believe it was the movie “Michael” starring John Travolta as an angel who came down to earth to bring the main characters together romantically. Before he had to return to Heaven, he wanted to see the “world’s largest” everything–from building to coffee/tea pot to ball of twine.

Give your answer to this question below!

Film Fun Magazine..March 1925…”IS LOVE EVERYTHING?” …..item 1..Phone bill cramming costs billions–Carriers get a fee for placing third-party charges on bills (July 14, 2011) …

Film Fun Magazine..March 1925…”IS LOVE EVERYTHING?” …..item 1..Phone bill cramming costs billions–Carriers get a fee for placing third-party charges on bills (July 14, 2011) …
Virginia Homes For Sale
Image by marsmet523
Telephone carriers have made more than billion[b] in revenue from third-party charges in the past decade, said Senator John "Jay" Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat and committee chairman. Carriers get a fee for placing third-party charges on bills, according to the report.

…..item 1)…..PCWorld…Business and Home….Senate report: Phone bill cramming costs billions
Businesses and consumers pay for unauthorized third-party telephone charges, the report says

Grant Gross (IDG News Service) — 14 July, 2011 02:27

www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393499/senate_report_phone…

Third-party charges on U.S. consumer and business telephone bills, most of them unauthorized by the customer, amount to US billion a year, according to a new report from a U.S. Senate committee.

Unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills, often called cramming, cost one national retail chain 0,000 over the last decade, not including the 0,000 the company spent to fight the mystery charges, said the report, resulting from a year-long investigation by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Telephone carriers have made more than billion[b] in revenue from third-party charges in the past decade, said Senator John "Jay" Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat and committee chairman. Carriers get a fee for placing third-party charges on bills, according to the report.

In the late 1990s, after congressional hearings on cramming, carriers promised to fix the problem, Rockefeller said during a committee hearing Wednesday. "Congress took their word for it," he said. "But what we now know is that the cramming problem wasn’t solved. Far from it."

Rockefeller ripped into telephone companies and trade group the United States Telecom Association for not taking stronger action against crammers. "Why not ban it?" he said. "Why put people through that? It doesn’t make any sense."

Telephone carriers will work with Congress to fix the problem, said Walter McCormick Jr., president and CEO of the trade group. He said he couldn’t answer Rockfeller’s questions about why carriers permit unauthorized third-party billing, but he said it’s difficult for carriers to determine which third-party charges are legitimate.

Revenues from allowing third-party billing amounts to about one tenth of 1 percent of carrier revenue, McCormick said. He promised to ask carriers about banning all third-party billing after a grilling from Rockefeller.

Congress originally required carriers to allow third-party charges as a way to allow customers to see their local and long-distance phone charges on the same bill, if they were provided by different carriers, McCormick said. Many carriers refund third-party charges after the first complaint by a customer, and many offer services to block all third-party charges, he said.

Rockefeller called on Congress to take action. Representatives of the attorneys general offices in Illinois and Vermont asked the committee to pass legislation that would ban most third-party charges on telephone bills.

Cramming happens when businesses add charges to a customer’s phone bill without permission. In some cases, the crammers get the telephone number when a customer signs up for a free offer online, but in other cases, the crammers apparently pull telephone numbers at random, witnesses said.

Only about 1 percent of third-party charges on telephone bills are legitimate, said David Spofford, CEO of Xigo, a vendor that monitors telephone charges for other companies.

Cramming charges can be for as little as .99 a month, but Illinois investigators have found charges of up to a month, said Lisa Madigan, the attorney general there. The charges are sometimes described as website design and hosting, search engine optimization and online yellow pages listings.

Corporate victims of cramming in recent years include Hewlett-Packard, IBM, AT&T, Dell, State Farm, Citigroup, American Airlines, Pepsi, Wal-Mart and Best Buy, according to the committee report. Large businesses with multiple locations are particularly susceptible to cramming, because of confusion over whether the charges were authorized, the report said. The report lists more than 200 business that have been victims of cramming, as well as several nonprofits, schools, and government agencies.

Susan Eppley, who worked in Georgia as accounts payable manager for a company operating fast food restaurants, said she discovered ,200 in cramming charges in late 2010. She spent about 15 hours working to get the money back, she told the committee.

"It is infuriating to me that it is legal for companies to, without authorization, charge your businesses … and, in effect, take money out of the hands of hard-working, deserving men and women," she said.

Wednesday’s hearing focused on landline phones, but witnesses said the problem was growing for mobile users as well. It may be tougher to target on mobile services, because of a number of legitimate add-on charges, including ring tones, witnesses said.

The hearing came a day after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission proposed new rules that would require landline telephone carriers to notify customers at the point of sale and on each bill of the option to block third-party charges on their phone bills. The proposed rules would require both landline and mobile carriers to include notices on their phone bills and websites saying customers can file complaints about mystery fees with the FCC.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant’s e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.
.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
.
.

Which of these colleges have the best film courses?

Question by Elton: Which of these colleges have the best film courses?
Albertus Magnus College (CT)
Anna Maria College (MA)
Assumption College (MA)
Bay Path College (MA)
Becker College (MA)
Bridgewater State College (MA)
Bryant University (RI)
Capella University (MN)
Central Connecticut State University
College of St. Joseph in Vermont
Curry College (MA)
Endicott College (MA)
Fisher College (MA)
Fitchburg State College (MA)
Florida Institute of Technology
Framingham State College (MA)
Franklin Pierce College (NH)
Green Mountain College (VT)
Husson College (ME)
Johnson State College (VT)
Johnson & Wales University (RI)
Kaplan University (online)
Lasell College (MA)
Mass. College of Liberal Arts
Mass. Maritime Academy
Merrimack College (MA)
Montserrat College of Art (MA)
New England College (NH)
New England Institute of
Technology (RI)
New York Institute of Technology
Newbury College (MA)
Nichols College (MA)
Northcentral University (AZ)
Pine Manor College (MA)
Plymouth State University (NH)
Post University (CT)
Providence College
Providence College School of
Continuing Education
Regis College (MA)
Rhode Island College
Rivier College (NH)
Roger Williams University (RI)
Sacred Heart University (CT)
Salem State College (MA)
Salve Regina University (RI)
Shaw University (NC)
Simmons College (MA)
Southern Connecticut State University
Southern New Hampshire University
Springfield College (MA)
Stonehill College (MA)
Strayer University (online)
Suffolk University (MA)
SUNY Maritime College
Temple University (PA)
University of Bridgeport (CT)
University of Hartford (CT)
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
University of Massachusetts-Boston
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth
University of Massachusetts-Lowell
University of New England
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of Rhode Island
University of South Florida
Virginia Union University
Wentworth Institute of
Technology (MA)
Western New England College (MA)
Wheelock College (MA)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (MA)
Worcester State College (MA)

Best answer:

Answer by PE2008
Most of them have decent “Film Appreciation” courses, but none have a FiIm Studies degree that leads to anything except unemployment, high debt, and a life of involuntary dumpster-diving for half-eaten hamburgers…

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!