MK-Ultra, Part 3: The Church Committee and America’s First Look Behind the Curtain

By Lori Walker Sartain

For over two decades, the CIA’s mind control program known as MK-Ultra operated in the shadows—unregulated, unaccountable, and devastating to its victims. But in 1975, the veil was partially lifted. What Americans discovered, through a historic Senate investigation known as the Church Committee, shocked the nation and shattered trust in government intelligence.

This was the moment when conspiracy became confirmed fact.

---

The Spark: Watergate and a Culture of Secrecy

In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Americans were already questioning how much power should be placed in the hands of secretive government agencies. Public trust in institutions had eroded. In response, Congress formed a series of investigative bodies to rein in abuses, including the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho.

This committee, formed in 1975, was tasked with investigating the CIA, FBI, NSA, and IRS. What they uncovered went far beyond political spying.

---

The Smoking Gun: MK-Ultra Exposed

Among the most damning revelations was the existence of Project MK-Ultra—a CIA initiative that had conducted mind control experiments on unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens. The experiments included:

• Drugging civilians with LSD without consent

• Hypnosis and sensory deprivation

• Electroshock therapy at extreme levels

• Covert operations using sex workers to lure victims into CIA-run safehouses (Operation Midnight Climax)

CIA Director Richard Helms, fearing the scandal that might unfold, had ordered the bulk of MK-Ultra records destroyed in 1973. What survived were 20,000 financial documents, misfiled in an accounting office—enough to piece together the truth.

---

A Pattern of Abuse and Evasion

The Church Committee discovered a web of illegal surveillance, media manipulation, and psychological warfare, not just on foreign enemies but on U.S. citizens. MK-Ultra was just one piece of a broader abuse of power that included:

• COINTELPRO: the FBI’s harassment of civil rights leaders

• NSA’s SHAMROCK program: unauthorized surveillance of American citizens’ communications

• Efforts to discredit journalists and political opponents

The CIA had not only experimented on civilians—they had evaded oversight at every level, often misleading the very presidents they were supposed to report to.

---

The Church Committee’s Impact

The final reports, published in 1976, were explosive. The American people learned for the first time that:

• The CIA had violated its own charter, operating domestically and against civilians

• Informed consent was often bypassed in favor of secrecy and expediency

• Mind control and behavior modification were not science fiction—they were government-funded priorities

As Senator Church stated:

“The potential for the abuse of power is enormous. We must ensure this never happens again.”

The committee led to the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the permanent Senate Intelligence Committee, marking the first significant congressional effort to rein in the intelligence community.

 

The Dark Side of Hollywood, Part 2: The Studio System and the Women It Swallowed

By Lori Sartain

As Hollywood entered its so-called “Golden Age,” a new power structure emerged—one that promised glamour and riches but ran on strict control, coercion, and secrets. The studio system, dominant from the 1920s to the 1950s, did more than manufacture stars; it created a machinery of manipulation that often left women chewed up and discarded behind the scenes.

Starlets on Contract—And on a Leash

Under long-term, binding studio contracts, actresses became commodities. Studios dictated every aspect of their lives—what they wore, who they dated, and even how much they weighed. Icons like Judy Garland were placed on amphetamines to stay thin and barbiturates to sleep. Garland, who began working for MGM as a teenager, was routinely body-shamed and medicated, her emotional collapse treated as just another publicity crisis to manage.

Studios also arranged public romances and marriages to maintain the illusion of propriety or heterosexuality. Personal agency was traded for stardom.

Casting Couch Culture: An Open Secret

The phrase “casting couch” wasn’t coined in hindsight—it was widely known even during Hollywood's golden years. Powerful moguls like Louis B. Mayer (MGM) and Harry Cohn (Columbia Pictures) had reputations for exploiting young women desperate for a break. Actresses who resisted risked blacklisting; those who complied were often discarded after the headlines faded.

Marilyn Monroe, perhaps the most famous example, spoke candidly before her death about the sexual abuse she endured early in her career, noting:

“I slept with producers. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t. But I didn’t like it.”

Forced Abortions and Image Control

Studios didn’t just own careers—they owned bodies. When pregnancies threatened the marketability of rising stars, studios arranged for secret abortions, sometimes without the woman's full consent. Loretta Young became pregnant by Clark Gable during filming. The studio forced her into hiding and concocted a fake adoption story to protect both actors’ images.

This kind of reproductive control was a recurring pattern, designed not out of concern for the women involved, but for the profitability of a pristine public image.

Whispers of Assault, Silenced by Power

Even when women tried to speak out, the power of the studio publicity machines—and their cozy relationships with law enforcement and the press—ensured silence. Rumors swirled about rape and abuse, particularly among underage performers, but few dared to challenge the moguls who held their careers in their hands.

The story of Patricia Douglas, who was assaulted at an MGM convention in 1937, was one of the few cases to make it to court. MGM used its considerable power to bury the story, intimidate Douglas, and destroy her life. The public barely noticed.

Behind the Glamour, a System of Abuse

What audiences saw on screen—sparkling gowns, sweeping romances, flawless faces—hid a brutal truth. The studio system was not built to empower women. It was designed to profit from them, control them, and discard them when they were no longer useful.

This was not incidental—it was systemic. The very structure of early Hollywood normalized abuse, silenced victims, and enshrined a culture of fear masked by sequins and smiles.

 

Understanding the Minnesota Shooter: Politics, Energy, and Possible Motives Behind the Tragedy

Lori Walker Sartain

June 14, 2025

The shocking shooting targeting Minnesota lawmakers has left many questions—especially about the shooter, Vance Luther Boelter, and what might have driven him to such violence.

Digging into his background reveals a complicated story. Boelter wasn’t just some random person; he served on Minnesota’s Governor’s Workforce Development Board under two Democratic governors, Mark Dayton and Tim Walz, between 2016 and 2019. That means he was involved in state government efforts around workforce and economic development, working within the Democratic leadership framework.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Before and during those appointments, Boelter worked as an executive in the petroleum industry—specifically with companies like Northern Tier Energy, Marathon Petroleum, and Speedway. These are big names in the oil refining and marketing world, meaning Boelter’s career was deeply tied to traditional energy sectors.

Why does that matter? Because Minnesota, especially under Governor Walz, has been pushing hard on clean energy policies. The “One Minnesota Path to Clean Energy” plan is all about boosting energy efficiency and investing in renewables. On the national stage, similar efforts like the Inflation Reduction Act have pumped billions into clean energy projects. These moves, while celebrated by environmental advocates, can be threatening to people whose careers depend on fossil fuels.

While there’s no direct proof that Boelter’s professional past or his government service caused his actions, experts think the tension between old energy industries and the new clean energy push could have played a role in fueling his frustrations.

This tragic event reminds us how personal and complex political and economic conflicts can be—sometimes with devastating consequences. As Minnesota continues its journey toward greener policies, understanding the human stories behind the headlines is more important than ever.

---

Sources

• Minnesota Governor’s Workforce Development Board member listings (2016–2019)

• WIOA Workforce Reports, Northern Tier Energy executive roles — wioaplans.ed.gov

• Governor Walz’s “One Minnesota Path to Clean Energy” plan — climatepower.us

• Federal clean energy investments under the Inflation Reduction Act — climatepower.us

  
  
  

 Story One: Series

 The Dark Side of Hollywood

The Silent Era — Hollywood’s Glamorous Beginning Masked a Legacy of Abuse

By Lori Walker Sartain

June 14th, 2025
The Dark Side of Hollywood: Part One

Hollywood was born in glitter but built on silence—not just in its films, but in the stories of its women.

During the early 20th century, as silent film captivated audiences and created the first movie stars, a different narrative played out behind closed doors. Behind the velvet curtains of Hollywood’s earliest studios lay a deeply embedded culture of exploitation, control, and sexual coercion—a system that viewed women not as artists, but as assets to be molded, used, and discarded.

---

The Birth of the Casting Couch

By the 1910s, film production had moved west to California, where legal oversight was minimal and the industry was still shaping its moral code—or lack thereof. Women, often young and poor, were drawn by the promise of stardom. The price? For many, access to roles depended on sexual submission to directors, producers, and studio heads.

The term “casting couch” was already in use by the 1920s, its meaning understood but rarely spoken. Studio moguls like Harry Cohn (Columbia Pictures), Louis B. Mayer (MGM), and Darryl F. Zanuck (20th Century Fox) were rumored to trade roles for sexual favors. With no unions, no #MeToo, and no Twitter, actresses had nowhere to turn.

“If you want to see the girl next door, go next door.”
— Darryl F. Zanuck, whose office had a private couch behind closed doors

---

Virginia Rappe: A Hollywood Death That Exposed the Industry’s Darkness

In 1921, aspiring actress Virginia Rappe attended a party hosted by silent film star Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle. Within days, she was dead from internal injuries. Arbuckle was accused of raping her with a foreign object—a crime so shocking, it led to three sensationalized trials.

Although Arbuckle was acquitted, the press and public saw through the studio’s efforts to sanitize the scandal. The first cracks in Hollywood’s image began to show, and the industry rushed to establish the Hays Code—not to protect women, but to control public perception.

---

Louis B. Mayer and the Manufactured Starlet

At MGM, Louis B. Mayer shaped a generation of female stars—Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, Judy Garland—with strict control over their appearances, behaviors, and even reproductive rights.

Mayer believed the image of purity sold tickets. But behind that façade, actresses were:

• Weighed weekly, threatened with contract termination if they gained weight.

• Given drugs to stay thin and alert—amphetamines in the morning, barbiturates at night.

• Forced into silence if they reported sexual advances.

Young girls were turned into icons, while their autonomy was stripped away.

“He would call me ‘my little hunchback’ and touch my breast when no one was looking.”
— Judy Garland, in a posthumous memoir, describing Mayer

---

Coercion and Control as Industry Norms

In the silent era, studio contracts functioned as legal slavery. Actresses were signed to seven-year deals that forbade them from choosing roles, dating without permission, or speaking to the press independently. These contracts also made it impossible to escape predatory bosses.

Actresses like Clara Bow (the original “It Girl”) were used for their sex appeal and then trashed by the same system that elevated them. Her real trauma—abuse, scandal, mental breakdown—was mocked by tabloids and suppressed by studios.

---

Women Behind the Camera—Erased

Ironically, the silent era offered brief freedom for female directors and writers—Lois Weber, Dorothy Arzner, and Frances Marion were some of the most successful filmmakers of the 1910s and ’20s. But by the late 1920s, as talkies emerged and corporate structures solidified, women were systematically pushed out of leadership roles.

Men took over the power positions. Women went back in front of the lens, under stricter control than ever before.

---

Silence as Survival

For many actresses, silence was the only way to survive. Speaking out meant career suicide, being labeled “difficult,” or worse, being institutionalized—a fate that befell stars like Frances Farmer and Jean Seberg decades later.

There were no HR departments. No publicists protecting victims. Only studio fixers—men like MGM’s Howard Strickling or Paramount’s Joe Willicombe—whose jobs were to cover up scandals, pay off reporters, and manage blackmailers.

---

A Legacy Built on the Objectification of Women

The images we celebrate from the silent era—women in shimmering gowns, blowing kisses to the camera—were often constructed through coercion, not consent.

Behind every iconic shot of a flapper or femme fatale was a vulnerable actress navigating a minefield of male power, image control, and emotional trauma.

---

Conclusion: The Silence That Still Echoes

The “silent” era of Hollywood was never truly silent. It simply muted the voices of women.

The abuses institutionalized during this time created a model that would persist for generations. As the entertainment industry grew, so too did the tactics of control, the gaslighting, and the exploitation—making Hollywood’s golden age a gilded cage for women who dared to dream.

The Oscars

 The Oscars

By: Lori Walker Sartain

I tried to think back to a time when I enjoyed watching the Oscars but it has been so long ago, I can't even remember who won and what year it was.  I am sure it was around the age of maturity as what I find so tremendously audacious about the affair is the fact that they all say they want to help those in need, they are for helping the poor and middle class but yet they prance around and walk the red carpet in outfits used for one day and never worn again that cost more than most people make in a year. 

Why?  

I don't know.  Do they feel they deserve to wear such expensive garments because they earned it.  Well, sure.  I do believe if you work hard and make a good living, you can do what you please with your money but it's like a slap in the face with them all wearing designer gowns, suits and carrying bags worth more than my car to a show that they want us 2nd class ticket buyers/video renters to enjoy.  Who in the world is this making feel good?  The viewer, the customer who pays the bills?  I think NOT.

They parade themselves like floats down a street with their sparkles and bling posing for photographs to make sure everyone notices their outfit.  They then they sit with a fake smile on waiting to see if they win.  If not, they politely clap and smile but you can see the envy in their eyes. 

Some now feel the need to give us political advice in their acceptance speech on things like on the gender pay gap and climate change while wearing clothing that could pay for 1000 girls to go to junior college or help clean 100 miles of the ocean.  

Why can't they wear regular nice clothes like we do to a party or awards ceremony?  Why can't they wear a $300 gown or a $300 suit or even a $1000 gown or $1000 suit?  Is that beneath them?  Do they think we could tell the difference?  Do they think we would judge them and say wow, they must not have enough money?  Here is a link to show you what I am talking about.  One gown cost over $140,000 that was worn one night. https://www.firmex.com/resources/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-dress-for-the-oscars/

Just imagine what $140,000 could do for a poor school district, surgery for someone in need, food for children that don't get food when school is out for summer.  Don't get me wrong, when you make money spend it how you please but this is not the place to flaunt your stuff if you are then going to try to address the public with personal beliefs, personal notions and expect anything to be heard.

I stopped watching because I don't believe in them anymore.  I use to think they were so cool.  They had talent and lived this wonderful life.  Now, I feel like it is always an act and contest for who has the best outfit, the most money and who thinks they can shout our to the world their opinions and everyone will stop and listen.  Me...Me...Me.

The Oscars should be about the film.  The work behind it.  The people behind the scenes who made it happen.  The writers and then lastly the actor who pulled it off.  But the Oscars, it is all about the face and not the work.  It is all about winning/money.  If you win, then you get more money for your next film.  It is not about the viewer, the audience or who pays their bills by buying a ticket to see them.  It is all about Me...Me...Me.

It has become a circus and last nights show just confirms that it is not only out of control but becoming a show where it is a free for all who can afford to be there.  It is their show, their stage and they will do what they want.  

I won't get into any debate over who was wrong or who was right.  I have only seen clips but what I will say, is that none of it should have happened live on TV for everyone to see.  

I will continue to NOT watch the Oscars.

Netflix Cobra Kai

 Netflix Cobra Kai

By: Lori Walker Sartain

I have to first say I was 20 years old when Karate Kid came out in 1984 and it was a huge hit.  Everyone fell in love with Ralph Macchio.  He became a big star and we all watched for his next great movie and it never happened.  He did star in a film I enjoyed called Crossroads in 1986 but even though it was good, it didn't get recognition.  They did a part 2 to Karate Kid and it worked, and nothing else ever worked for him.  He even did a Karate Kid III.  I watched it but by then, the story line was old.  So I have been waiting to see him in something worth watching for a while.

When I first saw that Cobra Kai was on Netflix, I snickered.  I thought how are these old guys going to make a Karate movie.  Come on, guys you are old, stop.  But my curiosity and love for the original Karate Kid allowed me to click start on the series one episode.

I was pleasantly surprised after the first episode.  The acting, writing and storyline all made me want to watch more.  The old Karate Kid actors are in their place and the new young "kids" are great.  I don't know if I love it due to nostalgia or the acting but I do love it.

It is a bit violent at times.  I wouldn't let me grand daughter who is 7 watch it.  I love that girls are lead characters that are strong and independent.  The original had all girls/women as passive girlfriends, moms and sideline parts.  There are several women in this series and NONE of them are passive.

William Zabka, that I despised in the originals, I now enjoy watching him and watching his character grow.  He was one dimensional in the originals and now you see his back story and understand more about him.  

Tanner Buchanan, watch for this guy.  He is going to be a huge star.  He has it all, looks, acting skills and timing.  Ever since he was introduced, I watch for him in all the scenes.  Xolo Mariduena also does a great job and I know the young girls like them both.

Courtney Henggeler, Mary Mouser and Peyton List are all great actors and three of my favorite female characters.  Cudos to the writers.  

The story line is predictable but the action makes up for it.  The violence is over the top but it is about Karate.  The enemies are great and we miss Mr. Miyagi but if you were a Karate Kid fan, you will enjoy this series.  For everyone else, I am really not sure as I still don't know if I enjoy this because it reminds me of my youth or if it is something everyone would enjoy.  It is worth checking out.

I give Cobra Kai 4 Red Hots

Netflix: Manifest

 Netflix Series: Manifest

By: Lori Walker Sartain

I began watching this series with a spark of hope that it was going to be original and fresh.  I actually binged the first three or four episodes then I just couldn't take it anymore.

What I had hoped for was a new twist, a new plot and they gave us that at the beginning but then it just laid dormant like it was dead.  The characters never grew, they never changed.  I didn't see any future changes or story plots that intrigued me.  

I'm not even going to call out any characters.  The acting was fine, it was the writing, the storyline, the plot.  It just never worked it's way into my "wanna see more" mind.

I felt like the writers didn't know where it was going and just kept writing in circles hoping a spark would hit.  No flames for me.

While I have seen some posting on social media that they love the new series, I do not.  I think some of the actors have a great shot for new pilots but I think this one is dead in the water and never manifested into a hit.

I give it One Red Hot.