Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Robert Groden: Homeland Security called him "Terrorist" -- and his July Arrest by Police Is Coming to Court!


Robert Groden is a bright jewel of truth that has been shining for years at Dealey Plaza, though his light is often dimmed by the police.

Listen to this excerpt where Alex Jones interviews JFK assassination expert Robert Groden, who gave the American people the Zapruder film, and also happens to be one of my personal heroes:

Alex Jones: "People can't handle it anymore, Robert...America is dying....it's almost like it's a cartoon of a poPublish Postlice state, it's so over the top."

"One of the times I was harassed in Dealey Plaza..." Groden tells us, "I was harassed not only by the Dallas police, but [also] by Homeland Security...half a dozen years ago..." "The Sixth Floor Museum kept calling the police (to seek the arrest of Groden)..." The Homeland Security officers told Groden he was "a terrorist" and forced him to leave. The people "were panic-stricken..."

However, the Sixth Floor Museum can "lie to little kids" with impunity, as Alex Jones has commented, and no "conspiracy theory" books are allowed in that expensive monument to government lies. You will not find a fitting monument to our slain President in Dallas. Nor will you find the truth in that Museum of Lies. You will not find a box in the sniper's nest labeled "a fingerprint of LBJ hitman Mac Wallace was found here" or that "three spent cartridges, supposedly from Oswald's rifle were described as lying here, all in a row. Who would take time to line them up before leaving the sniper's nest?"

As you'll hear in the interview below, Groden is going to court to face charges that he was selling material in Dealey Plaza without a permit. Let's forget the small fact that the City of Dallas does not have permits to buy for such activities! Or that he was the only person arrested -- while loonies with "garbage" for sale and the homeless, peddling unsavory wares there, were ignored.

Groden says 95% or more of those he speaks to in Dealey Plaza don't believe the Official Version. Those days are over. Despite the reports of (paid-for!) polls, implying that the percentage of those interviewed state Oswald didn't kill JFK is lower, only a few folks with double-digit IQ's, old soldiers who believe whatever they are told by the government, and close friends of Bugliosi (what close friends? Like Jesse Ventura? (not!) ) now state with confidence that "Oswald did it."

Here's an interview of Groden with Alex Jones, where we hear the truth about the Discovery Channel's faked 'reconstructions'of the Kennedy assassination:


visit http://www.lee-harvey-oswald.com tolearn more about the kennedy Assassination and the book Me & Lee:How I Came to Know,Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

ALL ABOUT ED HASLAM,GEORGE KNAPP, GEORGE BARBOUR ...COAST TO COAST NOV. 21, 2010

With reluctance, i consented to an interview on Coast to Coast late on November 21st (22nd for me). There will be no more radio interviews, if I can help it!

The twenty minutes of interview granted (more time would have been inadvisable) required a trip out of the country I was living in, a few hours later, for my safety.

Kudos to EDWARD T. HASLAM, who gave listeners excellent information, including how his book, Dr. Mary's Monkey (which was an outgrowth of his first book, Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus)related to the question in his mind about the underground laboratory he had discovered near David Ferrie's residence: WHERE was the necessary technician who had to be involved? More about the interview, below...plus the video I hope you'll enjoy....

Only today have I been able to re-establish connections with my "cutouts," who post messages and pass emails on to me. You have no idea how important your donations have been to help me 'stay legal' (I can only stay 90 days at a time in an EU country).

CANCER ON THE RAMPAGE

This Thanksgiving, as my family once again gathered without me, I learned that my former husband's brother died of lung and brain cancer the very day of the Coast to Coast interview. His wife is battling a cancer that required surgery just days before her husband died-- both her breasts had to be removed. It doesn't end there... Sadly, I leaned that my former husband, who has also been battling cancer, is losing the battle. he is scheduled for chemotherapy in January, if he is still alive at that time.

What were once rare cancers are no longer rare. The virus component found in so many of these once-rare cancers is well-known, but rarely mentioned by the media to the public.

TRANS-RESVERATROL AND A HEALTHY, ANTI-CANCER DIET

I do wish to clarify some information touched upon in the program, before inviting you to watch the interesting video below.

One available way to help prevent certain kinds of cancer, and PERHAPS to help those suffering from cancer --always consult your doctors--- besides a good 'anti-cancer" diet rich in colorful, organically-grown fruits and vegetables, is a good source of TRANS-resveratrol. That;'s the most active part of resveratrol, mentioned on the program. also, as "reversatrol" --an easy error to make, but one which needs correction here, again, in print.

To elaborate a bit on diet: some additional supplementary items I'd recommend, at this time, in an 'anti-cancer" diet include:

Organic blueberry, blackberry, cranberry and pomegranate juices, organic apple cider,organic purple grape juice, organic apple cider vinegar (be sure to balance with sufficient calcium and magnesium), lightly cooked, grated sugar beets, asparagus, inositol (form of niacin), omega-3 sources such as mercury-free salmon, vitamin D3 (taken on days when it's impossible to get natural sunlight--but not with inositol) and green teas-- free of fluorides -- as wise additions to any diet. (The above list is not all-inclusive.,

Avoid preserved meats and any heat-blackened surfaces on meat or fish. I wouldn't give aspartame or any other artificial sweetener to rats, let alone human beings, not wishing to shorten their lifespans.

Was unable to give any such advice on Coast to Coast: wish it had been possible to do so.

One other comment: concerning BACTERIOPHAGES.... Yes, we could have cured many kinds of soft-tissue cancers decades ago. That's the tragic truth. Chemotherapy makes BIG BUCKS for BIG PHARMA: the bottom line on why we don;t have a true cure for cancer yet. Nevertheless, I urge more research into using not 'macrophjage" which was suggested on the program, but bacteriophage as a resource to cure cancer. Bacteriophage that have been appropriately genetically altered hold the very key to curing certain soft tissue cancers, and will provide us with a basic building block with which to destroy any evolving new cancers that might develop resistance. Bacteriophage could remain in a treated person;s body, after defeating cancer there, for an unknown but probably extended period of time, ready to 'come to life' the moment the cancer might try to reappear. Now that's the kind of virus in a vaccine that people SHOULD think about accepting into their bodies!

WOULD I LIKE TO BE IN A LABORATORY, DIRECTING RESEARCH IN THIS AREA? JUST GIVE ME A FIGHTING CHANCE!

HAVING MADE THESE REMARKS ABOUT 'TRANS-RESVERATROL,' 'ANTI-CANCER DIETS' AND 'GENETICALLY MODIFIED BACTERIOPHAGES'-- LET'S LOOK AT THE VIDEO I HOPE YOU'LL VIEW WITH ENJOYMENT:

In the YouTube video shown here, you'll see both George Knapp (the same individual who interviewed me on Coast to Coast), and also John Barbour, a kind and honest celebrity with a passion for the truth, who spoke after I did, whose appropriate and supportive comments were much appreciated.

This video presents an introduction to Barbour's award-winning documentary, THE GARRISON TAPES--where he states, concerning New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison ---famed in the movie JFK for conducting the ONLY investigation into anyone else besides the innocent Oswald: "if [Garrison] had nothing, they would have stepped aside and let him fall on his face. Instead..."

Well, that "instead" leads to the misery and humiliation and attacks that garrison had to endure. I am quite familiar, myself, with that process. Honest researchers know that what the CIA and the media did to Garrison was illegal and constituted an obstruction of justice.

"Oswald did not fire the rifle" --Garrison

note that this is a good video---except for the statement in the beginning by our fine newsfolks, where they repeat the now-familiar mantra that npeople continue to believe that "Oswald did not act alone" -- a rote statement that has TAKEN THE PLACE OF "Was Oswald the shooter?"

This evolution in the statement is evidence of the tenacious, insidious way that the sold-out media has been brainwashed to re-word the essential question of WHO killed Kennedy. "Did Oswald act alone?" implies that Oswald shot Kennedy, but asks if he was involved or not in a conspiracy. It veers from the truth 180 degrees.

The question should be, "Since we know Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then who was responsible for protecting those who did?"

That leads to whence the perpetrators do not wish you to go.

As anyone who's read my book, Me & Lee , knows, Lee Oswald was a hero.

Now for the video (by the way, Jim Garrison also said that Lee was a hero!):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuMH3os2I1o

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Jim Douglass --COPA ADDRESS: JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE



NO CLEARER VOICE HAS BEEN RAISED IN DEFENSE OF A GREAT PRESIDENT, KILLED BY HIS OWN GOVERNMENT

TRANSCRIPT FROM COPA:

Jim Douglass COPA Keynote, November 20 Dallas
Thanks to Bill Kelly for this transcript of Jim Douglass’ incisive talk at the COPA regional meeting in Dallas last November.

"I want to speak tonight about the hope that comes from our confronting the truth of the assassination of President Kennedy. Concerned friends have asked me over the years if engaging in such a probe into darkness hasn’t made me profoundly depressed. On the contrary, it has given me great hope. As Martin Luther King said, the truth crushed to earth will rise again. Gandhi spoke hopefully of experiments in truth, because they take us into the most powerful force on earth and in existence – truth-force, satyagraha. That is how I think of this work, as an experiment in truth – one that will open us up, both personally and as a country, to a process of nonviolent transformation. I believe this experiment we are doing into the dark truth of Dallas (and of Washington) can be the most hopeful experience of our lives. But as you know, it does require patience and tenacity to confront the unspeakable. We, first of all, need to take the time to recognize the sources in our history for what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

The doctrine of “plausible deniability” in an old government document provides us with a source of the assassination of President Kennedy. The document was issued in 1948, one year after the CIA was established, 15 years before JFK’s murder. That document, National Security Council directive 10/2, on June 18, 1948, “gave the highest sanction of the [U.S.] government to a broad range of covert operations” – propaganda, sabotage, economic warfare, subversion of all kinds – that were seen as necessary to “win” the Cold War against the Communists. The government’s condition for those covert activities by U.S. agencies, coordinated by the CIA, was that they be “so planned and executed that…if uncovered the US government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”

In the 1950’s, under the leadership of CIA Director Allen Dulles, the doctrine of “plausible deniability” became the CIA’s green light to assassinate national leaders, conduct secret military operations, and overthrow governments that our government thought were on the wrong side in the Cold War. “Plausible deniability” meant our intelligence agencies, acting as paramilitary groups, had to lie and cover their tracks so effectively that there would be no trace of U.S. government responsibility for criminal activities on an ever-widening scale.

The man who proposed this secret, subversive process in 1948, diplomat George Kennan, said later, in light of its consequences, that it was “the greatest mistake I ever made.” President Harry Truman, under whom the CIA was created, and during whose presidency the plausible deniability doctrine was authorized, had deep regrets. He said in a statement on December 22, 1963:

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

“We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”

Truman later remarked: “The CIA was set up by me for the sole purpose of getting all the available information to the president. It was not intended to operate as an international agency engaged in strange activities.”

President Truman’s sharp warning about the CIA, and the fact that warning was published one month to the day after JFK’s assassination, should have given this country pause. However, his statement appeared only in an early edition of The Washington Post, then vanished without comment from public view.

What George Kennan and Harry Truman realized much too late was that, in the name of national security, they had unwittingly allowed an alien force to invade a democracy. As a result, we now had to deal with a government agency authorized to carry out a broad range of criminal activities on an international scale, theoretically accountable to the president but with no genuine accountability to anyone. Plausible deniability became a rationale for the CIA’s interpretation of what the executive branch’s wishes might be.

But for the Agency’s crimes to remain plausibly deniable, the less said the better – to the point where CIA leaders’ creative imaginations simply took over. It was all for the sake of “winning” the Cold War by any means necessary and without implicating the more visible heads of the government. One assumption behind Kennan’s proposal unleashing the CIA for its war against Communism was that the Agency’s criminal power could be confined to covert action outside the borders of the United States, with immunity from its lethal power granted to U.S. citizens. That assumption proved to be wrong.

During the Cold War, the hidden growth of the CIA’s autonomous power corresponded to the public growth of what was called a fortress state. What had been a struggling post-war democracy in our country was replaced by the institutions of a national security state. President Truman had laid the foundations for that silent takeover by his momentous decision to end the Second World War by a demonstration of nuclear weapons on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to stop a Soviet advance to Japan. Truman’s further, post-war decision for U.S. nuclear dominance in the world rather than allowing for international control of nuclear weapons was his second disastrous mistake, in terms of initiating the nuclear arms race in the world and subverting democracy in the U.S.A.

A democracy within a national security state cannot survive. The president’s decision to base our security on nuclear weapons created the contradiction of a democracy ruled by the dictates of the Pentagon. A democratic national security state is a contradiction in terms.

The insecure basis of our security then became weapons that could destroy the planet. To protect the security of that illusory means of security, which was absolute destructive power, we now needed a ruling elite of national security managers with an authority above that of our elected representatives. So from that point on, our military-industrial managers made the real decisions of state. President Truman simply ratified their decisions and entrenched their power, as he did with the establishment of the CIA, and as his National Security Council did with its endorsement of plausible deniability.

His successor, President Eisenhower, also failed to challenge in his presidency what he warned against at its end — the military-industrial complex. He left the critical task of resisting that anti-democratic power in the hands of the next president, John Kennedy.

When President Kennedy then stood up to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the military-industrial complex, he was treated as a traitor. His attempt to save the planet from the weapons of his own state was regarded as treason. The doctrine of plausible deniability allowed for the assassination of a president seen as a national security risk himself.




The CIA’s “plausible deniability” for crimes of state, as exemplified by JFK’s murder, corresponds in our politics to what the Trappist monk and spiritual writer Thomas Merton called “the Unspeakable.” Merton wrote about the unspeakable in the 1960’s, when an elusive, systemic evil was running rampant through this country and the world. The Vietnam War, the escalating nuclear arms race, and the interlocking murders of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy were all signs of the unspeakable.

For Merton, the unspeakable was ultimately a void, an emptiness of any meaning, an abyss of lies and deception. He wrote the following description of the unspeakable shortly after the publication of The Warren Report, which he could have been describing: “[The Unspeakable] is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.”

The void of the unspeakable is the dark abyss, the midnight reality of plausible deniability, that we face when we peer into our national security state’s murder of President Kennedy. And that is precisely where hope begins.

Why President Kennedy was murdered can be, I believe, a profound source of hope to us all, when we truly understand his story.

Now how can that possibly be? The why of his murder as a source of hope?

Let’s begin with the way Kennedy himself looked at the question.
One summer weekend in 1962 while out sailing with friends, President Kennedy was asked what he thought of Seven Days in May, a best-selling novel that described a military takeover in the United States. JFK said he would read the book. He did so that night. The next day Kennedy discussed with his friends the possibility of their seeing such a coup in the U.S. These words were spoken by him after the Bay of Pigs and before the Cuban Missile Crisis:

“It’s possible. It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness. Maybe the military would do a little criticizing behind his back, but this would be written off as the usual military dissatisfaction with civilian control. Then if there were another Bay of Pigs, the reaction of the country would be, ‘Is he too young and inexperienced?’ The military would almost feel that it was their patriotic obligation to stand ready to preserve the integrity of the nation, and only God knows just what segment of democracy they would be defending if they overthrew the elected establishment.”

Pausing a moment, he went on, “Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen.”

Waiting again until his listeners absorbed his meaning, he concluded with an old Navy phrase, “But it won’t happen on my watch.”

Let’s remember that JFK gave himself three strikes before he would be out by a coup, although he bravely said it wouldn’t happen on his watch.

As we know, and as he knew, the young president John Kennedy did have a Bay of Pigs.

The president bitterly disappointed the CIA, the military, and the CIA-trained Cuban exile brigade by deciding to accept defeat at the Bay of Pigs rather than escalate the battle. Kennedy realized after the fact that he had been drawn into a CIA scenario whose authors assumed he would be forced by circumstances to drop his advance restrictions against the use of U.S. combat forces. He had been lied to in such a way that, in order to “win” at the Bay of Pigs, he would be forced to send in U.S. troops. But JFK surprised the CIA and the military by choosing instead to accept a loss. “They couldn’t believe,” he said, “that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

We know how JFK reacted to the CIA’s setting him up. He was furious. When the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, he said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

He ordered an investigation into the whole affair, under the very watchful eyes of his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

He fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Richard Bissell, Jr., and Deputy Director General Charles Cabell. That was a huge decision – firing the top of the CIA’s hierarchy, including the legendary leader who had come to personify the agency, Allen Dulles.

The president then took steps “to cut the CIA budget in 1962 and again in 1963, aiming at a 20 per cent reduction by 1966.” John Kennedy was cutting back the CIA’s power in very concrete ways, step by step.

We know how the CIA and the Cuban exile community regarded Kennedy in turn because of his refusal to escalate the battle at the Bay of Pigs. They hated him for it. They did not forget what they thought was unforgivable.

In terms of JFK’s own analysis of the threat of an overthrow of his presidency, he saw the Bay of Pigs as the first strike against him. It was the first big stand he took against his national security elite, and therefore the first cause of a possible coup d’etat.

However, in terms of our constitution, our genuine security, and world peace, the position Kennedy took in facing down the CIA and the military at the Bay of Pigs, rather than surrendering to their will, was in itself a source of hope. No previous post-war president had shown such courage. Truman and Eisenhower had, in effect, turned over the power of their office to their national security managers. Kennedy was instead acting like he really was the president of this country – by saying a strong no to the security elite on a critical issue. If we the people had truly understood what he was doing then on our behalf, we would have thought the president’s stand a deeply hopeful one.

In terms of his Seven Days in May analysis of a coming coup, John Kennedy did have a second “Bay of Pigs.” The president alienated the CIA and the military a second time by his decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

JFK had to confront the unspeakable in the Missile Crisis in the form of total nuclear war. At the height of that terrifying conflict, he felt the situation spiraling out of control, especially because of the actions of his generals. For example, with both sides on hair-trigger alert, the U.S. Air Force test-fired missiles from California across the Pacific, deliberately trying to provoke the Soviets in a way that could justify our superior U.S. forces blanketing the USSR with an all-out nuclear attack. As we know from Kennedy’s secretly taped meeting with his Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 19, 1962, the Chiefs were pushing him relentlessly to launch a pre-emptive strike on Cuba, and ultimately the Soviet Union. In this encounter the Chiefs’ disdain for their young commander-in-chief is summed up by Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay when he says:

LeMay: “This [blockade and political action] is almost as bad as the appeasement [of Hitler] at Munich…I think that a blockade, and political talk, would be considered by a lot of our friends and neutrals as being a pretty weak response to this. And I’m sure a lot of our own citizens would feel that way too.

“In other words, you’re in a pretty bad fix at the present time.”
President Kennedy responds: “What did you say?”

LeMay: “I say, you’re in a pretty bad fix.”

President Kennedy: [laughing] “You’re in with me, personally.”

As the meeting draws to a close, Kennedy rejects totally the Joint Chiefs’ arguments for a quick, massive attack on Cuba. The president then leaves the room but the tape keeps on recording. Two or three of the generals remain, and one says to LeMay, “You pulled the rug right out from under him.”

LeMay: “Jesus Christ. What the hell do you mean?”

Other General: “…He’s finally getting around to the word ‘escalation.’ If somebody could keep ‘em from doing the goddamn thing piecemeal, that’s our problem…”

The White House tapes show Kennedy questioning and resisting the mounting pressure to bomb Cuba coming from both the Joint Chiefs and the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. At the same time, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, the two men most responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis, seemed locked in a hopeless ideological conflict. The U.S. and Soviet leaders had been following Cold War policies that now seemed to be moving inexorably toward a war of extermination.
Yet, as we have since learned, Kennedy and Khrushchev had been engaged in a secret correspondence for over a year that gave signs of hope. Even as they moved publicly step by step toward a Cold War climax that would almost take the world over the edge with them, they were at the same time smuggling confidential letters back and forth that recognized each other’s humanity and hoped for a solution. They were public enemies who, in the midst of deepening turmoil, were secretly learning something approaching trust in each other.

On what seemed the darkest day in the crisis, when a Soviet missile had shot down a U2 spy plane over Cuba, intensifying the already overwhelming pressures on Kennedy to bomb Cuba, the president sent his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, secretly to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. RFK told Dobrynin, as Dobrynin reported to Khrushchev, that the president “didn’t know how to resolve the situation. The military is putting great pressure on him…Even if he doesn’t want or desire a war, something irreversible could occur against his will. That is why the President is asking for help to solve this problem.”

In his memoirs, Khrushchev recalled a further, chilling sentence from Robert Kennedy’s appeal to Dobrynin: “If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.”

Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita’s son, has described his father’s thoughts when he read Dobrynin’s wired report relaying John Kennedy’s plea: “The president was calling for help: that was how father interpreted Robert Kennedy’s talk with our ambassador.”

At a moment when the world was falling into darkness, Kennedy did what from his generals’ standpoint was intolerable and unforgivable. JFK not only rejected his generals’ pressures for war. Even worse, the president then reached out to their enemy, asking for help. That was treason.

When Nikita Khrushchev had received Kennedy’s plea for help in Moscow, he turned to his Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko and said, “We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him.”

Khrushchev stunned himself by what he had just said: Did he really want to help his enemy, Kennedy? Yes, he did. He repeated the word to his foreign minister:

“Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.”

How do we understand that moment? The two most heavily armed leaders in history, on the verge of total nuclear war, suddenly joined hands against those on both sides pressuring them to attack. Khrushchev ordered the immediate withdrawal of his missiles, in return for Kennedy’s public pledge never to invade Cuba and his secret promise to withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey – as he would in fact do. The two Cold War enemies had turned, so that each now had more in common with his opponent than either had with his own generals. As a result of that turn toward peace, one leader would be assassinated thirteen months later. The other, left without his peacemaking partner, would be overthrown the following year. Yet because of their turn away from nuclear war, today we are still living and struggling for peace on this earth. Hope is alive. We still have a chance.

What can we call that transforming moment when Kennedy asked his enemy for help and Khrushchev gave it?

From a Buddhist standpoint, it was enlightenment of a cosmic kind. Others might call it a divine miracle. Readers of the Christian Gospels could say that Kennedy and Khrushchev were only doing what Jesus said: “Love your enemies.” That would be “love” as Gandhi understood it, love as the other side of truth, a respect and understanding of our opponents that goes far enough to integrate their truth into our own. In the last few months of Kennedy’s life, he and Khrushchev were walking that extra mile where each was beginning to see the other’s truth.

Neither John Kennedy nor Nikita Khrushchev was a saint. Each was deeply complicit in policies that brought humankind to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, when they encountered the void, then by turning to each other for help, they turned humanity toward the hope of a peaceful planet.

John Kennedy’s next “Bay of Pigs,” his next critical conflict with his national security state, was his American University Address. Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins summed up the significance of this remarkable speech: “At American University on June 10, 1963, President Kennedy proposed an end to the Cold War.”

I believe it is almost impossible to overemphasize the importance of President Kennedy’s American University address. It was a decisive signal to both Nikita Khrushchev, on the one hand, and JFK’s national security advisers, on the other, that he was serious about making peace with the Communists. After he told the graduating class at American University that the subject of his speech was “the most important topic on earth: world peace,” he asked:

“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek?”
He answered, “Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”

Kennedy’s rejection of “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war” was an act of resistance to the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex was totally dependent on “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” That Pax Americana policed by the Pentagon was considered the system’s indispensable, hugely profitable means of containing and defeating Communism. At his own risk Kennedy was rejecting the foundation of the Cold War system.

In its place, as a foundation for peace, the president put a compassionate description of the suffering of the Russian people. They had been our allies during World War Two and had suffered mightily. Yet even their World War Two devastation would be small compared to the effects of a nuclear war on both their country and ours.

In his speech, Kennedy turned around the question that was always asked when it came to prospects for peace – the question, “What about the Russians?” It was assumed the Russians would take advantage of any move we might make toward peace.

Kennedy asked instead, “What about us?” He said, “Our attitude [toward peace] is as essential as theirs.” What about our attitude to the nuclear arms race?

Within the overarching theology of our country, a theology of total good versus total evil, that was a heretical question, coming especially from the president of the United States.

Kennedy said he wanted to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in Moscow – in their capitol, not ours – as soon as possible. To clear the way for such a treaty, he said he was suspending U.S. atmospheric tests unilaterally.

John Kennedy’s strategy of peace penetrated the Soviet government’s defenses far more effectively than any missile could have done. The Soviet press, which was accustomed to censoring U.S. government statements, published the entire speech all across the country. Soviet radio stations broadcast and rebroadcast the speech to the Soviet people. In response to Kennedy’s turn toward peace, the Soviet government even stopped jamming all Western broadcasts into their country.

Nikita Khrushchev was deeply moved by the American University Address. He said Kennedy had given “the greatest speech by any American President since Roosevelt.”

JFK’s speech was received less favorably in his own country. The New York Times reported his government’s skepticism: “Generally there was not much optimism in official Washington that the President’s conciliation address at American University would produce agreement on a test ban treaty or anything else.” In contrast to the Soviet media that were electrified by the speech, the U.S. media ignored or downplayed it. For the first time, Americans had less opportunity to read and hear their president’s words than did the Russian people. A turn-around was occurring in the world on different levels. Whereas nuclear disarmament had suddenly become feasible, Kennedy’s position in his own government had become precarious.

President Kennedy’s next critical conflict with his national security state, propelling him toward the coup d’etat he saw as possible, was the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that he signed with Nikita Khrushchev on July 25, 1963, six weeks after the American University Address. The president had done an end run around the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He negotiated the Test Ban Treaty without consulting them, because they opposed it.
Kennedy was fiercely determined but not optimistic that the Test Ban Treaty be ratified by the defense-conscious Senate. In early August, he told his advisers that getting Senate ratification of the agreement would be “almost in the nature of a miracle.” He said if a Senate vote were held right then it would fall far short of the necessary two-thirds.

Kennedy initiated a whirlwind public education campaign on the treaty, coordinated by Saturday Review editor Normal Cousins, who directed a committee of activists. By the end of August, the tide of congressional mail had gone from fifteen to one against a test ban to three to two against.

In September public opinion polls showed a turnaround. 80 percent of the American people were now in favor of the Test Ban Treaty. On September 24, 1963, the Senate approved the treaty by a vote of 80 to 19 – 14 more than the required two-thirds. No other single accomplishment in the White House gave Kennedy greater satisfaction.

On September 20, Kennedy spoke to the United Nations. He suggested that its members see the Test Ban Treaty as a beginning and engage together in an experiment in peace:

“Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed, and was willing to sign, a Limited Test Ban treaty. Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: ‘Give me a place where I can stand – and I shall move the world.’
“My fellow inhabitant of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.”

When he said these words, John Kennedy was secretly engaging in another risky experiment in peace. That same day at the United Nations, Kennedy told UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson that his assistant William Attwood should go ahead “to make discreet contact” with Cuba’s UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga. Was Fidel Castro interested in a dialogue with John Kennedy? A strongly affirmative answer would come back from Castro, who had been repeatedly urged by Khrushchev to begin trusting Kennedy. Kennedy and Castro actually began that dialogue on normalizing U.S.-Cuban relations, through the mediation of French journalist Jean Daniel who personally visited both men in the month leading up to the assassination. Daniel was actually eating lunch with Castro in his home on November 22, conveying Kennedy’s hopeful words, when the Cuban premier was phoned with the news of Kennedy’s death. Castro’s somber comment to Daniel was: “Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.”

On October 11, 1963, President Kennedy issued a top-secret order to begin withdrawing the U.S. military from Vietnam. In National Security Action memorandum 263, he ordered that 1,000 U.S. military personnel be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that the bulk of U.S. personnel be taken out by the end of 1965.

Kennedy decided on his withdrawal policy, against the arguments of most of his advisers, at a contentious October 2 National Security Council meeting. When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was leaving the meeting to announce the withdrawal to the White House reporters, “the President called to him, ‘And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too.’”

In fact, it would not mean that at all. After JFK’s assassination, his withdrawal policy was quietly voided. In light of the future consequences of Dallas, it was not only John Kennedy who was murdered on November 22, 1963, but 58,000 other Americans and over three million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians.

In his reflections on Seven Days in May, John Kennedy had given himself three Bay-of-Pigs-type conflicts with his national security state before a possible coup. What about six?

(1) The Bay of Pigs.
(2) The Cuban Missile Crisis.
(3) The American University Address.
(4) The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
(5) The beginning of a back-channel dialogue with Fidel Castro.
(6) JFK’s order to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam.

This, however, is a short list of the increasing conflicts between Kennedy and his national security state.

We can add to the list a seventh Bay of Pigs – the steel crisis, in which he profoundly alienated the military industrial complex before the Cuban Missile Crisis even took place. The steel crisis was a showdown the president had with U.S. Steel and seven other steel companies over their price-fixing violations of an agreement he had negotiated between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers’ union. In a head-on confrontation with the ruling elite of Big Steel, JFK ordered the Defense Department to switch huge military contracts away from the major steel companies to the smaller, more loyal contractors that had not defied him. After the big steel companies bitterly backed down from their price raises, JFK and his brother, Robert, were denounced as symbols of “ruthless power” by the Wall Street power brokers at the center of the military industrial complex.

By an editorial titled, “Steel: The Ides of April” (the month in which Kennedy faced down the steel executives), Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine called to readers’ minds the soothsayer’s warning in Shakespeare of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Fortune was warning Kennedy that his actions had confirmed the worst fears of corporate America about his presidency, and would have dire consequences. As interpreted by the most powerful people in the nation, the steel crisis was a logical prelude to Dallas. It was a seventh Bay of Pigs.

An eighth Bay of Pigs was Kennedy’s diplomatic opening to the fiery third-world leadership of President Sukarno of Indonesia. Sukarno was “the most outspoken proponent of Third World neutralism in the Cold War.” He had actually coined the term “Third World.” The CIA wanted Sukarno dead. It wanted what it saw as his pro-communist “global orientation” obliterated. During Eisenhower’s presidency, the CIA repeatedly tried to kill and overthrow Sukarno but failed.

JFK, however, chose to work with Sukarno, hoping to win him over as an ally, which he did. Sukarno came to love Kennedy. The U.S. president resolved what seemed a hopeless conflict between Indonesia and its former colonial master, the Netherlands, averting a war. To the CIA’s dismay, in 1961 Kennedy welcomed Sukarno to the White House. Most significantly, three days before his assassination, President Kennedy said he was willing to accept Sukarno’s invitation to visit Indonesia the following spring. His visit to Indonesia would have dramatized in a very visible way Kennedy’s support of Third World nationalism, a sea change in U.S. government policy. That decision to visit Sukarno was an eighth Bay of Pigs.

Kennedy’s Indonesian policy was also killed in Dallas, with horrendous consequences. After Lyndon Johnson became president, the CIA finally succeeded in overthrowing Sukarno in a massive purge of suspected Communists that ended up killing 500,000 to one million Indonesians.

Last Sunday I interviewed Sergei Khrushchev about an important late development in the relationship between his father and President Kennedy. In his interview, Mr. Khrushchev confirmed that his father had decided in November 1963 to accept President Kennedy’s repeated proposal that the U.S. and the Soviet Union fly to the moon together. In Kennedy’s September 20, 1963, speech to the United Nations, he had once again stated his hope for such a joint expedition to the moon. However, neither American nor Soviet military leaders, jealous of their rocket secrets, were ready to accept his initiative. Nikita Khrushchev, siding with his own rocket experts, felt that he was still forced to decline Kennedy’s proposal.

JFK was looking beyond the myopia of the generals and scientists on both sides of the East-West struggle. He knew that merging their missile technologies in a peaceful project would also help defuse the Cold War. It was part of his day-by-day strategy of peace.

Sergei Khrushchev said his father talked to him about a week before Kennedy’s death on the president’s idea for a joint lunar mission. Nikita Khrushchev had broken ranks with his rocket scientists. He now thought he and the Soviet Union should accept Kennedy’s invitation to go to the moon together, as a further step in peaceful cooperation.

In Washington, Kennedy acted as if he already knew about Khrushchev’s hopeful change of heart on that critical issue. JFK was already telling NASA to begin work on a joint U.S.-Soviet lunar mission. On November 12, 1963, JFK issued his National Security Action Memorandum 271, ordering NASA to implement his “September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.”

That further visionary step to end the Cold War also died with President Kennedy. The U.S. went to the moon alone. U.S. and Soviet rockets continued to be pointed at their opposite countries rather than being joined in a project for a more hopeful future. Sergei Khrushchev said, “I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world.”

In the final weeks of his presidency, President Kennedy took one more risky step toward peace. It can be seen in relation to a meeting he had the year before with six Quakers who visited him in his office. One thousand members of the Society of Friends had been vigiling for peace and world order outside the White House. President Kennedy agreed to meet with six of their leaders. I have interviewed all three survivors of that meeting with the president 47 years ago. They remain uniformly amazed at the open way in which President Kennedy listened and responded to their radical Quaker critique of his foreign policy. Among their challenges to him was a recommendation that the United States offer its surplus food to the People’s Republic of China. China was considered an enemy nation. Yet it was also one whose people were beset by a famine.

Kennedy said to the Quakers, “Do you mean you would feed your enemy when he has his hands on your throat?”

The Quakers said they meant exactly that. They reminded him it was what Jesus had said should be done. Kennedy said he knew that, and knew that it was the right thing to do, but he couldn’t overcome the China lobby in Washington to accomplish it.

Nevertheless, a year and a half later in the fall of 1963, against overwhelming opposition, Kennedy decided to sell wheat to the Russians, who had a severe grain shortage. His outraged critics said in effect to him what he had said to the Quakers: Would you feed an enemy who has his hands on your throat?

Vice President Lyndon Johnson said he thought Kennedy’s decision to sell wheat to Russia would turn out to be the worst political mistake he ever made. Today JFK’s controversial decision “to feed the enemy” has been forgotten. In 1963, the wheat sale was seen as a threat to our security – feeding the enemy to kill us. Yet JFK went ahead with it, as one more initiative for peace.

The violent reaction to his decision was represented on Friday morning, November 22, 1963, by a threatening, full-page advertisement addressed to him in the Dallas Morning News. The ad was bordered in black, like a funeral notice.

Among the charges of disloyalty to the nation that the ad made against the president was the question: “Why have you approved the sale of wheat and corn to our enemies when you know the Communist soldiers ‘travel on their stomach’ just as ours do?” JFK read the ad before the flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, pointed it out to Jacqueline Kennedy, and talked about the possibility of his being assassinated that day.

“But, Jackie,” he said, “if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it?”

President Kennedy’s courageous turn from war to a strategy of peace provided many more than three Bay-of-Pigs-type causes for his assassination. Because he turned toward peace with our enemies, the Communists, he was continually at odds with his own national security state. Peacemaking was at the top of his agenda as president. That was not the kind of leadership the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the military industrial complex wanted in the White House. Given the Cold War dogmas that gripped those dominant powers, and given Kennedy’s turn toward peace, his assassination followed as a matter of course.

That is how he seemed to regard the situation – that it would soon lead to his own death. JFK was not afraid of death. As a biographer observed, “Kennedy talked a great deal about death, and about the assassination of Lincoln.” His conscious model for struggling truthfully through conflict, and being ready to die as a consequence, was Abraham Lincoln. On the day when Kennedy and Khrushchev resolved the missile crisis, JFK told his brother, Robert, referring to the assassination of Lincoln, “This is the night I should go to the theater.” Robert replied, “If you go, I want to go with you.”

Kennedy prepared himself for the same end Lincoln met during his night at the theater. Late at night on the June 5, 1961, plane flight back to Washington from his Vienna meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, a weary President Kennedy wrote down on a slip of paper, as he was about to fall asleep, a favorite saying of his from Abraham Lincoln – really a prayer. Presidential secretary Evelyn Lincoln discovered the slip of paper on the floor. On it she read the words: “I know there is a God – and I see a storm coming. If he has a place for me, I believe that I am ready.”

Kennedy loved that prayer. He cited it repeatedly. More important, he made the prayer his own. In his conflicts with Khrushchev, then more profoundly with the CIA and the military, he had seen a storm coming. If God had a place for him, he believed that he was ready.

For at least a decade, JFK’s favorite poem had been Rendezvous, a celebration of death. Rendezvous was by Alan Seeger, an American poet killed in World War One. The poem was Seeger’s affirmation of his own anticipated death.

The refrain of Rendezvous, “I have a rendezvous with Death,” articulated John Kennedy’s deep sense of his own mortality. Kennedy had experienced a continuous rendezvous with death in anticipation of his actual death: from the deaths of his PT boat crew members, from drifting alone in the dark waters of the Pacific Ocean, from the early deaths of his brother Joe and sister Kathleen, and from the recurring near-death experiences of his almost constant illnesses.

He recited Rendezvous to his wife, Jacqueline, in 1953 on their first night home in Hyannis after their honeymoon. She memorized the poem, and recited it back to him over the years. In the fall of 1963, Jackie taught the words of the poem to their five-year-old daughter, Caroline.

I have thought many times about what then took place in the White House Rose Garden one beautiful fall day.

On the morning of October 5, 1963, President Kennedy met with his National Security Council in the Rose Garden. Caroline suddenly appeared at her father’s side. She said she wanted to tell him something. He tried to divert her attention while the meeting continued. Caroline persisted. The president smiled and turned his full attention to his daughter. He told her to go ahead. While the members of the National Security Council sat and watched, Caroline looked into her father’s eyes and said:

I have a rendezvous with Death
At some disputed barricade,
When Spring comes back with rustling shade
And apple-blossoms fill the air –
I have a rendezvous with Death
When Spring brings back blue days and fair.

It may be he shall take my hand
And lead me into his dark land
And close my eyes and quench my breath –
It may be I shall pass him still.
I have a rendezvous with Death
On some scarred slope of battered hill,
When Spring comes round again this year
And the first meadow-flowers appear.

God knows ‘twere better to be deep
Pillowed in silk and scented down,
Where love throbs out in blissful sleep,
Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,
Where hushed awakenings are dear….
But I’ve a rendezvous with Death
At midnight in some flaming town,
When Spring trips north again this year,
And I to my pledged word am true,
I shall not fail that rendezvous.

After Caroline said the poem’s final word, “rendezvous,” Kennedy’s national security advisers sat in stunned silence. One of them said later the bond between father and daughter was so deep “it was as if there was ‘an inner music’ he was trying to teach her.”

JFK had heard his own acceptance of death from the lips of his daughter. While surrounded by a National Security Council that opposed his breakthrough to peace, the president once again deepened his pledge not to fail that rendezvous. If God had a place for him, he believed that he was ready.

So how can the why of his murder give us hope?

Where do we find hope when a peacemaking president is assassinated by his own national security state?

The why of the event that brings us together tonight encircles the earth. Because John Kennedy chose peace on earth at the height of the Cold War, he was executed. But because he turned toward peace, in spite of the consequences to himself, humanity is still alive and struggling. That is hopeful, especially if we understand what he went through and what he has given to us as his vision.

At a certain point in his presidency, John Kennedy turned a corner and didn’t look back. I believe that decisive turn toward his final purpose in life, resulting in his death, happened in the darkness of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although Kennedy was already in conflict with his national security managers, the missile crisis was the breaking point. At that most critical moment for us all, he turned from any remaining control his security managers had over him toward a deeper ethic, a deeper vision in which the fate of the earth became his priority. Without losing sight of our own best hopes in this country, he began to home in, with his new partner, Nikita Khrushchev, on the hope of peace for everyone on this earth – Russians, Americans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, everyone – no exceptions. He made that commitment to life at the cost of his own. What a transforming story that is.

And what a propaganda campaign has been waged to keep us Americans from understanding that story, from telling it, and from re-telling it to our children and grandchildren.

Because that’s a story whose telling can transform a nation. But when a nation is under the continuing domination of an idol, namely war, it is a story that will be covered up. When the story can liberate us from our idolatry of war, then the worshippers of the idol are going to do everything they can to keep the story from being told. From the standpoint of a belief that war is the ultimate power, that’s too dangerous a story. It’s a subversive story. It shows a different kind of security than always being ready to go to war. It’s unbelievable – or we’re supposed to think it is — that a president was murdered by our own government agencies because he was seeking a more stable peace than relying on nuclear weapons. It’s unspeakable. For the sake of a nation that must always be preparing for war, that story must not be told. If it were, we might learn that peace is possible without making war. We might even learn there is a force more powerful than war. How unthinkable! But how necessary if life on earth is to continue.

That is why it is so hopeful for us to confront the unspeakable and to tell the transforming story of a man of courage, President John F. Kennedy. It is a story ultimately not of death but of life – all our lives. In the end, it is not so much a story of one man as it is a story of peacemaking when the chips are down. That story is our story, a story of hope.

I believe it is a providential fact that the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination always falls around Thanksgiving, and periodically on that very day. This year the anniversary of his death, two days from now, will begin Thanksgiving week.

Thanksgiving is a beautiful time of year, with autumn leaves falling to create new life. Creation is alive, as the season turns. The earth is alive. It is not a radioactive wasteland. We can give special thanks for that. The fact that we are still living – that the human family is still alive with a fighting chance for survival, and for much more than that – is reason for gratitude to a peacemaking president, and to the unlikely alliance he forged with his enemy.

So let us give thanks this Thanksgiving for John F. Kennedy, and for his partner in peacemaking, Nikita Khrushchev.

Their story is our story, a story of the courage to turn toward the truth. Remember what Gandhi said that turned theology on its head. He said truth is God. That is the truth: Truth is God. We can discover the truth and live it out. There is nothing more powerful than the truth. The truth will set us free."


http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/jfk-at-american-university.html

http://zh-tw.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=193389907209&comments&ref=mf

Saturday, October 30, 2010

FBI Agent Adams Says Oswald Not Guilty ---But What Will You Do, When the Bootjacks Come for You?



(CLICK ON THE POEM TO READ IT/PRINT IT)
This stunning poem by Martha Rose Crow depicts what can happen to us if we continue to ignore the truth about those who inherited power after the Kennedy assassination, and how they steered our nation to its present state of misery -- a country not only miserable itself, but inflicting agonies indescribable on several other countries as well. Choosing silence is easy...until the Bootjacks come for you....

It is time to remember that this government came into existence by killing John F. Kennedy. Those are hard words, but oh-so-true. By tracing who handed power over to whom, we can learn who should NOT be in power today.

To understand the root of the problem, it is essential to understand that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot Kennedy. The truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not guilty, no matter how many "official version" websites tell you otherwise. The same people who write these websites also support the wars that have made America enemies across the planet. They are the same people who pass lies around about us. But we are witnesses to the truth who love our country and want the truth revealed about how our country is being hijacked, our freedoms curtailed, and our future on auction to the highest bidder.

The enemies of our country support the military and the military industrial complex and the banking czars. Therefore, they receive support and praise from the media, while we who speak as Cassandra, to almost deaf ears, struggle to get the truth into your hands and endure insults, privations and even exile.
We are patriots who love our country: they who pretend Oswald killed Kennedy, in the face of overwhelming evidence and witness testimony to the contrary, are supporting traitors and the heirs of traitors. Some think they are doing their country a service for the sake of its national security, when, in fact, they help perpetuate the lies and the liars that have illegally taken over our country and have been running it for the last half century.

In that time period, the American dream has shrunken to an American pipe-dream, with America as a benevolent country loving freedom now seen as a truly imperialistic country with the tentacles of a devouring octopus strangling peace everywhere. We manufacture more than half the world's weapons of war, and Afghanistan, which once had almost no opium production, is now a world leader in opium production--even helped along with fertilizer supplied by the American government (Don't believe that? Look it up!).

Winning hearts and minds in Pakistan....

AND WHAT ABOUT "WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS" IN AMERICA? NO PROBLEM--WE TAKE WHATEVER IS THROWN AT US--SUCH AS SECRET TESTS OF DRONES TO BE USED IN OUR OWN COUNTRY, TO "WATCH OVER" US....

OF COURSE, WE'LL NEED THE DRONES TO ATTACK OUR ATTACKERS, SHOULD THEY SHOW THEIR FACES ON AMERICAN SOIL. NECESSARY, RIGHT -- SINCE WE'VE MADE SO MANY "FRIENDS" ACROSS THE WORLD WITH OUR PEACE-LOVING WAYS. "...THE DRONE IN THE VIDEO IS DEBUTING IN THE HOUSTON AREA, GEORGE BUSH TERRITORY...NO SURPRISE THERE..."CAMERAS CAN ACTUALLY LOOK INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES OR FOLLOW THEM...WHICH RAISES NEW QUESTIONS...THEY CAN STAY AIRBORNE OVER HOUSTON 15-24 HOURS WITHOUT LANDING...."POLICE THREATENED THE COURAGEOUS REPORTERS WHO MADE THIS VIDEO.

Time to watch a couple MORE videos, my friends....

The first video, just below, was recently presented by a Fox news TV station.

IT IS AN INTERVIEW OF (RET)FBI AGENT DON ADAMS, WHO INVESTIGATED JOE MILTEER'S THREAT AGAINST PRESIDENT KENNEDY,WHICH WAS APE RECORDED IN MIAMI, FLORIDA SHORTLY BEFORE KENNEDY WAS KILLED IN DALLAS.

ADAMS TELLS US HOW MILTEER THREATENED KENNEDY'S LIFE, BUT WAS NOT INTERROGATED AFTER THE ASSASSINATION--NOR IS HIS NAME EVEN MENTIONED IN THE WARREN COMMISSION'S RECORDS. ADAMS STATES QUITE SIMPLY THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION MEMBERS "WERE LIARS" WHEN THEY BLAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD FOR KENNEDY'S MURDER.

ADAMS ALSO POINTS OUT MILTEER STANDING IN THE CROWD AT DEALEY PLAZA -- IN FACT, OTHER ENEMIES OF KENNEDY STOOD IN THAT PLAZA THAT FATEFUL DAY, AS WELL.
WATCH THIS VIDEO, THEN COPY IT AND SEND IT TO OTHERS.


OF COURSE I HOPE YOU WILL READ MY BOOK-- AND THAT YOU WILL VISIT MY WEBSITE AND SEND OTHERS THERE, TO HELP ME KEEP SPEAKING OUT. WHILE WE STILL HAVE A VOICE ON THE INTERNET, WE MUST SPEAK OUT.
THIS MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP OUR COUNTRY FROM GETTING PERMANENTLY DESTROYED BY GREEDY, IRRESPONSIBLE POLITICIANS WHOSE VERY SOULS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE EVER-GROWING ONE WORLD ESTABLISHMENT.
DON'T LET THE FANCY WEBSITES AND 'TV SPECIALS' PROCLAIMING THE INNOCENT MAN, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, AS KENNEDY'S KILLER BE HEARD THIS NOVEMBER! DO NOT LET THEM DUPE THE PEOPLE YET AGAIN THIS YEAR. STOP THEM IN THEIR TRACKS!
TELL EVERYONE ABOUT ME & LEE, HOW I CAME TO KNOW, LOVE AND LOSE LEE HARVEY OSWALD. LEE OSWALD WAS A HERO. HE DID HIS BEST TO SAVE KENNEDY. HE TOLD ME, "IF I STAY, THAT WILL BE ONE LESS BULLET AIMED AT KENNEDY," BELIEVING HIS PLACE IN THE ASSASSINATION RING WOULD BE FILLED BY SOMEBODY ELSE IF HE FLED, AND ALSO, THAT THOSE HE LOVED WOULD BE MURDERED. HE HOPED THAT IN SOME WAY HE MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO SAVE KENNEDY IN TEXAS--THOUGH HE DOUBTED IT.
NEVERTHELESS, HE STOOD HIS GROUND, HOPING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF OTHERS AND TO ASSIST AN ABORT TEAM THAT HE WAS TOLD WAS COMING TO HELP SAVE THE PRESIDENT.


WHETHER THAT TEAM'S EXISTENCE WAS A LIE TO KEEP LEE QUIET AND IN PLACE, SO HE COULD BE CAPTURED AND BLAMED, I DO NOT KNOW.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT SOMEDAY LEE OSWALD WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS THE MAN WHO SAVED KENNEDY FROM DEATH IN CHICAGO, WHICH MEANT THAT OSWALD WOULD LOSE HIS OWN LIFE THREE WEEKS LATER IN DALLAS, WHERE THE COUP D'ETAT WAS SUCCESSFUL, AND WHERE A NEW GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD PURSUE WAR FOR PROFIT WOULD MOVE ACROSS THE PLANET, SPREADING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM, WHILE STRIPPING THE GREAT NATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF ITS WEALTH, PRESTIGE AND MUCH-VAUNTED FREEDOMS.

I MOURN FOR MY PEOPLE, TRAPPED WITH JUST TWO POLITICAL PARTIES TO CHOOSE FROM--BOTH CORRUPT AND SOLD-OUT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDERS. IMAGINE! CORPORATIONS, BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, YOU NAME IT, CAN NOW, THANKS TO A CORRUPT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT, GIVE AS MUCH $$$$$ AS THEY WISH TO A CANDIDATE!
IN ANCIENT ROME, AS IT BECAME INCREASINGLY CORRUPT, THE OFFICE OF EMPEROR AT LAST SIMPLY WENT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.

That's no different from what's happening today in America.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD NO CHANCE TO REFORM A THING.

I do not blame him. He has a family, and as one commentator said, "He was taken to the woodshed." Just as all other recent presidents. Assassination awaits those who do not comply. I was disgusted to see how bankers and financiers sitting as Obama spoke to the nation got up and shouldered their way past the President, their body language showing their contempt and how much power they had.

If the people of my country had been given the $$$$$ that the banks got instead, we would not have good, hard-working American families homeless on the streets, while the bankers who stole their homes from them get multi-million dollar bonuses for destroying the middle class of a once-great nation.

The people of American don't rebel because:
1) they are overworked
2)their nutrition and food makes them feel unhealthy, and drugs freely handed out by doctors, along with drugs bought on the street, keep many of them weak-willed, vulnerable, and selfish
3) medical care is inadequate for a majority of workers
4) their cities are inundated with violence --even as a lack of respect for privacy rights keeps individual citizens under increasingly unlawful surveillance
5) their once-respected and admired police are now feared and distrusted
6) lost jobs, religious prejudice and anger about illegal immigrants make the people unable to even think about the illegal wars that never stop --which drain Americans of their wealth and destroy their chances of peace as the Muslim world gets increasingly radicalized
7) no leader--no President--can stand up against the money-lords running the world, and now that "change" is seen to be a mere pipe-dream, many will give up trying to effect reform, or will turn to isolationism or violence
8) meanwhile, education is aimed at keeping the population so dumbed-down and insulated from the rest of the world that the people have no way to know if their leaders lie to them or not, because the media is owned by only a few big-shot organizations that depend on good relationships with the powers that be, and what "truth" is out there is buried or deleted if it is "inconvenient"
9)as my friend Martha Rose Crow said--"What will you do, when the Bootjacks come for you?"



jvb


A DEADLOCKED CONGRESS GUARANTEED THAT PEOPLE WOULD GIVE UP ON OBAMA, WHO ALSO ENHANCED THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN, CREATING YET MORE ENEMIES AGAINST THE USA.
IF THE PAKISTANI BORDERS HAD SIMPLY BEEN SECURED TO KEEP THE TALIBAN OUT OF PAKISTAN, AND AFGHANISTAN ITSELF IGNORED, WHAT A DIFFERENCE EVEN THAT COULD HAVE MADE. BUT HOW COULD THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX HAVE MADE FORTUNES, WHILE SPILLING MUSLIM BLOOD AND THE BLOOD OF YOUNG AMERICAN SOLDIERS, IF THEY'D SIMPLY GUARDED THE BORDER? WILL AMERICA WAKE UP, OR DO WE WHO SPEAK OUT HAVE TO LOSE OUR LIVES AND OUR REPUTATIONS AND OUR LIVELIHOODS TO GET THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO CARE MORE ABOUT DIVORCES BY MOVIE STARS THAN THEIR COUNTRY?
I MOURN FOR MY COUNTRY, AND FOR MY PEOPLE.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Dr. J. P. Hubert Speaks Up About the Kennedy Assassination


announcement: ME & LEE is now available from Trine Day,Amazon.com, etc. If you purchase ME & LEE at my official website run by Edward T. Haslam, at http://www.judyth vary baker.com you will receive (eventually!) a personal letter of thanks from me. Because I live in exile, I rely on donations and your good will to continue on. And it is for this man--Lee Harvey Oswald--that I fight. When you realize he did not kill John F. Kennedy, then you must accept the hard truth:
our government cooperated to kill Kennedy.


"Before being given the opportunity to disclose his role as an intelligence operative and what he might have known about the conspiracy to kill JFK[9], Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered on national TV in a room full of police and FBI agents whose only responsibility was to protect him." Dr. J.P. Hubert, MD

Dr. J. P. Hubert's blog on the Moral Philosophy of Current Events is well-written and informative.

His comments about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence, and the catastrophe that has engulfed America ever since controlling powers moved in to take over the reins of government in a truly corrupt new reign of usurped power, are appropriate and well-referenced. Dr. James Fetzer first brought this blog to my attention a few months ago, and I reproduce most of it here, with references to various books available on the subject by the courageous Trine Day publishing house that fit well with this topic:

moralphilosophyofcurrentevents.blogspot.com
3 August 2010


It is now beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by his own National Security State in what was a violent coup d'├ętat that is, an overthrowing of the legitimate elected government of the United States by force through the use of the clandestine black-ops services of the CIA, elements of the Secret Service, the US military, the FBI and organized crime.[1]



Probability and Statistics:

Various scientific calculations have been done which indicate that there is less than 1 chance in a trillion that JFK's death was the result of one man acting alone. There were at least 15 separate violations made by the US Secret Service in their handling of Presidential Security in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.[2] These were unprecedented breaches in protocol. It would have been unusual if even one of these breaks in procedure had occurred let alone 15 during one Presidential visit. It defies credulity to think that such a scenario could have occurred on the basis of chance alone. Obviously the Secret Service “stood-down” so as to facilitate the conspirator’s killing teams in accomplishing the dastardly deed.[3] This means there was an extremely well orchestrated conspiracy to kill the President.

Perhaps even more astoundingly, during the 3 year period following the assassination of JFK and the murders of Lee Harvey Oswald and Officer J. D. Tippit, some 17 witnesses who were involved either directly or peripherally died, 72% of which were unnatural deaths, 52% being murders. The probability that even 15 of the 17 witnesses would be dead by 1967 is 100 quadrillion to 1 or 10(-17).[4]

The 35th President of the United States was murdered at essentially high noon on a bright autumn day in the middle of an American city while his security detail looked on and did nothing. The conspirators’ message was simple; “we’re in charge and there is nothing you can do about it.” Within the first hour after the Assassination, a pre-arranged “patsy” who had been placed in position at the Texas School Book Depository[5] was hunted down and apprehended long before any agency should have even suspected that he might have been involved. Lee Harvey Oswald--who as a result of the FIA[6] and the JFK Records Act[7] is now known to have been an American intelligence operative[8]--whether wittingly or by some last minute ruse played the part of the “fall-guy." During the entire time Oswald was in custody he denied killing President Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit. There exists more and more evidence that Oswald was not involved in the killing of either JFK or Officer Tippit.









Before being given the opportunity to disclose his role as an intelligence operative and what he might have known about the conspiracy to kill JFK[9], Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered on national TV in a room full of police and FBI agents whose only responsibility was to protect him. The night before his killing, the Dallas Police Department received 2 separate calls from unknown person(s) who reported that Oswald was to be murdered. Despite the warning, the Dallas Police made no attempt to prevent the killing of ostensibly the most important prisoner in US custody at the time. It defies all logic to believe that both JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald were killed by lone “deranged” gunmen.

Metaphysical Certainty:

In light of all of the cumulative JFK Assassination evidence now available, there exists metaphysical certainty that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy with the power not only to murder the President but to successfully perpetrate a cover-up of monumental proportions which included securing massive medical fraud in the forensic evidence.[10] David Lifton, Douglas P. Horne and Dr. David W. Mantik and others have amply documented the details of how the medical fraud was accomplished.[11] The absolutely critical concept to understand is that no foreign or domestic entity would have had the access, power and requisite technological expertise to direct and accomplish the cover-up other than the American National Security State including US military physicians, 3 of which conducted the sham autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Shadow Government in Control:

Unless and until the United States publicly discloses to the citizenry that its duly elected government was overthrown in 1963 and that since then the replacement/imposter government has been at least technically/legally speaking illegitimate[12] it will likely be impossible to reverse the increasingly rapid disintegration of America. The reality is that since the murder of President John F. Kennedy, there has been an extra-constitutional imposter “government” in place which prior to that time existed only in the shadows. It has been given many different names including the “war party” the MIMIC (media, intelligence, military, industrial complex) the secret government, the shadow government etc. That entity or “Regime” as a result of the JFK assassination appears to have profoundly altered the trajectory of the United States by placing the country on a constant war footing and building and sustaining an enormous foreign military base presence throughout the world which serves to project American power and enlarge the “empire.”



Beginning with the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and his reversal of John F. Kennedy’s NSAM # 263 (within 4 days of the JFK Assassination) calling for an end to all US presence in Vietnam by 1965[13], the course which the US took was that of increasing militarization and empire-building rather than the move toward peace, nuclear disarmament and ending of the cold war begun by JFK in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis.[14] As should be readily apparent, the result has been catastrophic for the United States and much of the world. Since the death of President Kennedy, the confidence of the American people in their government has been drastically reduced suggesting that at a subliminal level at least, Americans are aware that something extremely troubling has transpired. Moreover, the polarization of the major political parties which now exists can be traced to the Johnson administration’s prosecution of the Vietnam War and its terrible sequelae.

Hegelian Dialectic and the Manipulation of US Population:

A form of Hegelian dialectic[15] is currently being utilized successfully by the oligarchical “Regime” to control the masses through an artificial binary division of reality[16] into a politics of left vs.: right in combination with the unrelenting “bread and circus” entertainment extravaganza being foisted upon the people the latest incarnation of which is the absurd reality TV phenomenon. Most Americans are too busy attempting to survive to be able to sort through the maze of distractions. They seek refuge in meaningless electronic games, TV shows and sporting events as a way to escape from the dismal realities of their increasingly hopeless lives. For those with more time and the requisite interest in politics and current events, the shadow government provides a steady diet of right vs.: left diatribes carried out by various “experts”, talking heads and partisan political hacks many of whom function as US intelligence assets and "cut-outs" of various kinds.[17] Few Americans realize that this left/right dichotomy is totally artificial and contrived so as to limit the universe of acceptable public discourse.

Effect of Dumbing-Down of America:

Americans have been “dumbed-down” for over 50 years such that as an aggregate entity we are no longer capable of reason or for that matter intellectually sound individual thought. The completely artificial bi-polar division between right and left, liberal and conservative so dominates the public discourse that one would think that it totally exhausts the entire panoply of possibilities. This of course is the sine que non of the Hegelian dialectic which is served up on a nightly basis in the form of cable “news” TV shows which attempt to promote an endless debate over which political worldview is best while demonizing its opponent. The idea that on many topics the position of neither left nor right is credible--seems to have been totally missed by most Americans.


The Left/Right Divide and the Hiding of the Truth:

For example, we have become accustomed to there being only 2 possibilities in any given dispute over issues of public policy; the position of the liberal (progressive) left and that of the neoconservative right.[18] How many Americans understand that the neoliberal left and the neoconservative right are but artificial constructs in the Hegelian tradition, designed to allow for the appearance of debate all the while serving to disguise the truth that the resolution/synthesis has already been predetermined by the oligarchical Regime currently in charge? The Regime has as its greatest weapon the fact that no one wishes to believe the truth. For most of us it is simply too painful, unnerving and overwhelming. As many propagandists have indicated, “the bigger the lie the more readily it will be believed.” It is viscerally more comfortable to believe the lie that our government exists of, by and for the people rather than for an elite few who wield all the power and influence and for whom everyone else exists only to be utilized, abused and discarded. The mercenary (all volunteer) US military is a perfect example of the latter being made up almost exclusively of the offspring of impoverished Americans. This has been the case since the draft was ended in the 1970’s.

Theater of the Absurd:

Every four years the Regime treats us to another “theater of the absurd” in which US citizens are allowed to vote for one of 2 Presidential candidates, each of whom has been vetted by the oligarchy such that from its standpoint it matters little which one is elected. Irrespective of what campaign promises are made, once in power, the new Presidential administration hues to the wishes of the not so hidden “shadow government.” It should be intuitively obvious that no serious candidate for high office could rise to that level without demonstrating a willingness to regurgitate the “party line” of their respective political affiliation. As a result so-called third-party candidates are virtually never successful when running for the highest office in the land. The only real opportunity for rank and file US citizens to effect change in their government is to elect a Representative to the US House who is committed to representing their views. Unfortunately, the mega corporations now appear to enjoy monopoly control[19] due to the campaign finance laws which allow for virtually unlimited contributions to candidates.[20] The practical effect is to nullify the political power of the average citizen.

The Political Process is Broken:

The current political process then is broken. So what can we do? It is obvious that under the current set of circumstances, it makes no difference who is elected President and what major political party has the White House or Congress for that matter. To say this of course is considered heresy among the pundit/ruling class who earn their livings by pretending the system is legitimate. Unfortunately however,...they are wrong. There are simply too many powerful individuals and multinational corporations who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Examples include the banking, health care, munitions and energy industries and their lobbies and individual pundits who make up the afternoon and evening chattering class on cable TV such as Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Ed Schultz, Keith Oberman and others.[21]

All of the above individuals to one degree or another represent special interest groups across the political spectrum. None are truly independent thinkers. They owe their jobs to their willingness to hue a particular political line as representatives of the media entity to which they belong. For example, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck regurgitate the Neoconservative party line for Fox News with...differences in style but not substance.

Matthews (frequently repeats the claim that JFK and RFK were both killed by a lone deranged individual and he accepts/advertizes the poor work of scholarship that is Pozner's "Case Closed" which is easily debunked), Oberman (who also accepts Pozner's conclusions in "Case Closed") and Schultz largely follow the left or liberal party line with minor differences in substance and major differences in style. All advance the liberal political views of MSNBC.

CNN on the other hand touts itself as simply reporting the facts without an obvious political orientation. However...(i)t never criticizes the genocidal policies of the Jewish state so in that sense at least it is completely biased in favor of the Israeli Jews and against the Palestinian Arabs. It has failed to report the Apartheid nature of modern Israel where the human rights granted to Jews are denied to Arabs.

The Power of the Israel Lobby:

Not one of the above cable entities or individual pundits dares to criticize the Israeli government or its immoral policies however. In fact no major network or cable entity is willing to risk doing so due to the power of the Zionist (Israel) Lobby. Only in foreign venues or on the internet among bloggers does one find a willingness to question Israel’s Apartheid/genocidal policies or the actions of the Zionist Lobby. There is a(n)...extensive Zionist Lobby which has infiltrated virtually every branch of the US government, most major ‘think-tanks” and much of US academia.
There exists only a very small Jewish minority in the United States who admit that the actions of the modern state of Israel are not only immoral but counterproductive to the ultimate survival of the Jewish state. Fortunately, in Israel, Jewish intellectuals and academics such as Ilan Pappe have begun to break the strangle hold that radical Zionist’s such as Benyamin Netanyahu, Igor Lieberman and others have held over successive Israeli governments.

Is there a Solution?









While the internet is still relatively unregulated, it behooves every US citizen to peacefully but actively spread the truth that in the wake of World War II/the creation of the CIA and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the constitutional representative democratic republic which was brought into being in 1789 was replaced[22] with a not so secret shadow government which does the bidding of the elites and is antithetical to the needs, desires and goals of everyone else.

This effort should include organizing at the state and local levels. It should include electing to the US House of Representatives individuals who cannot be purchased by the multinational corporations and special interest groups. Finding such highly morally committed individuals will not be easy.


Finally, interested and committed individuals of like-mind should band together for the purpose of pooling their various resources in order to better oppose the corporate media and their relentless attempts to “brain-wash” the public. Time is short for the survival of the American experiment. Please help Spread the word!

Notes:

[1] The evidence is simply overwhelming. For those who are not yet familiar with some of the seminal works, they include but are not limited to those in the selected reference section appended to this essay.
[2] Philosopher of Science Professor James H. Fetzer performed a calculation assuming that the probability that any one of them would be breached was only 10% which is more than likely too high. For even 12 to be breached at the same time yields a probability of 10(-12).
[3] Evidence now strongly suggests that there were likely at least 3 teams, one in the TSBD, one behind the fence at the grassy knoll, and one at the southwest end of the overpass in the storm drain. It is also possible that a 4th team was positioned at the southeast end of the overpass and another in the Dal-Tex building fairly close to ground level. The exact identity and number of the assassins is of course irrelevant to the issue of whether a conspiracy existed.
[4] Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact. The Warren Commission, the Authorities and the Report. (New York: Random House, 1975) chapter 16, p. 302.
[5] Only someone in the US Secret Service would have been privy to the last minute change in the Dallas parade route which took the motorcade directly past the TSBD on Elm Street rather than down Main Street which had been the published route up until that point. The “last-minute” change was no doubt arranged to lessen the number of witnesses who would see the shooting and to be certain that Oswald was placed in the correct strategic position to be framed.
[6] Abbreviation for Freedom of Information Act.
[7] Passed in 1992 in response to the Motion Picture by Oliver Stone about the JFK Assassination. The law is known as the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. The Act ordered all assassination-related material to be placed in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
[8] See for example, James Di Eugenio and Lisa Pease, Editors. The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003) and John Newman. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth about the Unknown Relationship between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1995).
[9] Judyth Vary Baker who alleges a romantic affair with Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963 while the two worked under-cover at the Reilly Coffee Co. of New Orleans also claims that Oswald discovered the plot to kill Kennedy and had hoped to derail it but was unable to do so. Oswald apparently suspected that the result might be his own death as well as President Kennedy’s. Please see the extensive set of interviews on this site in which Judyth Baker is questioned in detail about Oswald.
[10] This included altering the wounds on the body of JFK prior to the “official” autopsy, substituting a different brain, falsifying the location of the alleged back wound in order to make the magic bullet hypothesis plausible, altering the skull X-rays and photographs of the head etc. See Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes I-V. (2009). Also see David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980).
[11] See for example Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes I-V. (2009), especially volume IV.
[12] We have lost the legitimate succession of power from one Presidential Administration to the next by direct “propagation” due to the violent removal of President John F. Kennedy from office and the resultant complete turnabout in policy that Lyndon B. Johnson ordered and presided over.
[13] Johnson signed NSAM # 273 which began the increasing build-up of land forces in Vietnam 4 days after JKF’s Assassination.
[14] For an excellent detailed discussion of President Kennedy’s move toward peace in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis see James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008).
[15] Problem, reaction, solution or (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).
[16] This metaphysical construct is extremely dangerous since it results in a complete polarization of the population into left vs.: right.
[17] See for example Carl Bernstein. “The CIA and the Media.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977 for a discussion of the many media personages who are under the control of the national security state.
[18] The traditional or Paleoconservative “right” no longer exists for all practical purposes in that the neoconservatives have taken over the right wing of the US political spectrum. Neoconservatism has its roots in Trotsky and its branches in Nazism/Fascism. Newt Gingrich and former Vice President Dick Cheney are illustrative of the more radicalized Neoconservative right.
[19] The Health Insurance Lobby was the major beneficiary of the recently passed Health Reform Bill, the Banking Lobby virtually wrote the Banking Reform legislation.
[20] "Bundling" of funds by large corporate donors is a favorite tactic.
[21] One possible exception is the courageous Dylan Ratigan who has been willing to speak truthfully about the reality of the present circumstances at least with respect to the various lobbies which control the Congress. He has not to date challenged the Zionist Lobby which presumably would result forthwith in his dismissal from MSNBC.
[22] A true violent Coup d'etat. I specifically use this term recognizing that Peter Dale Scott disagrees with the use of that term when applied to the JFK Assassination.

References:

1. Bernstein, Carl. “The CIA and the Media.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977
2. Boyle, Francis A. Biowarfare and Terrorism. (Atlanta Georgia: Clarity Press Inc., 2005).
3. Boyle, Francis A. Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. (Atlanta Georgia: Clarity Press Inc., 2009).
4. Crenshaw, Charles A. et.al. Trauma Room One: The JFK Medical Coverup Exposed. (New York: Paraview Press, 2001).
5. Di Eugenio, James and Lisa Pease, Editors. The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003).
6. Douglas, James W. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008).
7. Fetzer, James H., Editor. Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998).
8. Fetzer, James H., Editor. Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then about the Death of JFK. (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2000).
9. Fetzer, James H., Editor. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK, (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003).
10. Fonzi, Gaeton. The Last Investigation. (Ipswich, Mass.: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 1993).
11. Hersh, Burton. The Old Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA. (New York: Scribner’s, 1992).
12. Horne, Douglas P. Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes I-V, 2009).
13. Hurt, Henry. Reasonable Doubt. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985).
14. Lane, Mark. Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991).
15. Lifton, David. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980).
16. Livingstone, Harrison E. High Treason 2. (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers Inc., 1992).
17. Livingstone, Harrison E. Killing Kennedy: And the Hoax of the Century. (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers Inc., 1995).
18. Livingstone, Harrison E. Killing the Truth. Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers Inc., 1994).
19. Mangold, Tom. Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’ Master Spy Hunter. (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992).
20. Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories After the Fact. (New York: Random House, 1975).
21. Melanson, Philip H. Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence. (New York: Praeger, 1990).
22. Newman, John. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth about the Unknown Relationship between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1995).
23. Prouty, L. Fletcher. JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. (New York: Carroll Publishing Group, 1996).
24. Russell, Dick. The Man Who Knew Too Much. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992).
25. Scott, Peter Dale. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993).
26. Scott, Peter Dale. Deep Politics II: The New Revelations in U.S. Government Files 1994-1995. (Ipswich, Mass: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2003).
27. Talbot, David. Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years. (London: Simon and Schuster UK Ltd, 2007).
28. Thompson, Josiah. Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-study of the Kennedy Assassination Proving that Three Gunmen Murdered the President. (New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1967).