I read Sue Ann Arrigo, M.D.'s piece on conspiracyplanet.com ten days ago (not my first visit there). It was a very long read. I want to know more about her credentials before echoing her assertions. The only thing that seems to be said about her is that her medical license checks out in California. That's not much for someone who says she was a two-star general, high-level CIA agent, and FBI agent all rolled into one. Why has she been in such obscurity relative to other people such as Ray McGovern (former CIA)? He's not a household name, but the alternative sites sure know about him in a big way. Is it because she has other leanings and just doesn't run in his circles at all?
She mentioned twice a book about the science of memory as if to self-validate what she was putting forth as if she had her own doubts. That's a tip-off that she has problems and that we ought to reserve judgment.
SueAnn Arrigo's Explosive Revelations
Exposing Pentagon and CIA Corruption
By STEPHEN LENDMAN
June 11, 2008
Information for this article comes from long-time business, finance and political writer and analyst Bob Chapman who publishes the bi-weekly International Forecaster. It's power-packed with key information and a valued source for this writer. He obtained voluminous material directly from its source. People need to know it. Read on.
SueAnn Arrigo is the source. She was a high-level CIA insider. Her title was Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). She also established the Remote Viewing Defense protocols for the Pentagon in her capacity as Remote Viewing Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).
Well, I decided to look a little further today, because I like much of what Stephen Lendman writes. Here's one thing I found.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Return from Spookyville
On June 2 I posted a piece called A short trip to Spookyville , concerning the incredible allegations of Dr. Sue Arrigo M.D., allegedly an "ex- CIA physician with high level access".
Briefly, she maintained that HIV/Aids was deliberately unleashed on the world and that there is a vaccine which has been kept secret. She also described running secret missions for Dick Cheney and to have twice treated Osama bin Laden after 9/11. My post was picked up by several conspiracy sites.
It's not that I wasn't skeptical of her claims. In fact I wrote: "Just because someone has an M.D. after her name does not mean that she may not be suffering from mental illness. "
One thing that did intrigue me, however, was that her sister Maria Arrigo, Ph.D., described herself in a paper as "a social psychologist studying intelligence ethics and as daughter of an undercover intelligence officer."
As it turns out Sue Arrigo has another sister, Linda Gail Arrigo, Ph.D. in Sociology, who left a comment on my original post stating in part:
I am sorry to say that my sister Sue Ann Arrigo has periodic episodes of paranoid schizophrenia, and this has been over a period of ten years at least. It is amazing how her wild stories have proliferated all over the web.
I have since exchanged a few emails with Linda Arrigo. She writes:
I believe that my sister Sue Ann has been having periodic bouts of paranoid schizophrenia since about 15 years ago. She is convinced that our father was both a member of the CIA and the Mafia, and that he inducted her at a young age into intelligence activities, and that she has been under mind control since then, and subject to frequent kidnapping and threats by agents, wherever she is in the world. However, she has no material or historical evidence of this other than her later memories and physical symptoms, as she reported recently for supposedly being kidnapped in Ireland in early June 2007. I talked by telephone with my mother who was with her right afterwards and accompanied her to the doctor and the police, and my mother now believes Sue Ann is subject to hallucinations.
Our father, born 1914, served 20 years in the U.S. military, about 1941-61, in Europe, the Pentagon, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. His work was logistics, not intelligence. I lived with him in Taiwan 1963-68; my sisters had virtually no contact with him after 1962. He is senile now, in San Francisco, and I sorted through most of his papers during the last few summers. He is not a pleasant personality, but I am certain he had no such CIA contacts or capacity.
If any consistent check were made on Sue Ann's schooling and employment for the last 30 years, it would be obvious that her current allegations of service as a CIA medic are pure fantasy, even if well-informed by public knowledge of current issues in U.S. government behavior.
There are enough real victims of U.S. military and intelligence actions; it is not surprising, perhaps, that victims of schizophrenia like my sister should feed on these accounts.
Given the incredible allegations of Dr. Sue Arrigo, the complete lack of supporting evidence, and this statement by her sister, I see no reason to give any credence to her claims. I wish her well.
I haven't read any of the thread. It's too much for me to read right now. I think much of what I've written here will be said there by others.
Now, this is not definitive, but until someone shows that Sue Ann Arrigo is what she claims, I for one am reserving judgment.
I don't doubt that others have been abducted and brainwashed, etc. Most of that is well-documented, and governments have made open apologies and paid victims. Of course, governments can create schizophrenia. Abuse creates it. Abuse, torture, breaks the mind in that way.
That doesn't mean that schizophrenics don't have any real memories. It also doesn't mean that love can't heal schizophrenia.
I believe that Sue Ann Arrigo was abused, but was it the government and did she end up holding high non-elected offices in U.S. intelligence? I strongly doubt it in her case.
Of course, who can be certain as to whether or not she's a creation to make conspiracy theories against the government in general appear to come only from those suffering from delusions? Disinformation is the government propagandist's tool.
Look at what it may do to Stephen Lendman's body of work if conservative tricksters can point the finger at him saying that he was taken in by Sue Ann Arrigo. Why not suspect everything Stephen has written is what that would be designed to do.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)